HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/11/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 20, 2000
7:30 p.m.
6:45 p.m. – Special Meeting – Delinquent Utility Charges
7:00 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to order
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of November 6, 2000
b. Study Session Special Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2000
c. Study Session Minutes of July 10, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of agenda
a. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
b. Items to be acted upon consent
Note: All matters on the consent calendar 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 item(s) will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
1. Motion to approve resolution appointing Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. as the City
Auditor and approve entering into an agreement for audit services.
2. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment changing the
designation on property located at 3345 Dakota Avenue South and adjacent
2
railroad from R2 to C1, adopt Ordinance, approve summary Ordinance and
authorize publication.
3. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment, adopt ordinance,
approve summary and authorize its publication.
4. Motion to approve Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13, Part 3
of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code Concerning the Sale, Consumption and
Display of Alcoholic Beverages; and motion to approve the ordinance summary
and authorize publication.
5. Approve first reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00 and set second
reading for December 4, 2000.
6. Motion to approve the attached resolution accepting the grant of $100,000
designed for assistance with the development of soccer fields in the Oak Park
Village area.
7. Motion to accept reports for filing
a. Planning Commission Minutes of October 18, 2000
b. Pay Equity Report
c. Charter Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000
d. Vendor Claims
e. Financial Report
f. Planning Commission Minutes of November 1, 2000
5. Public Hearings
5a. 2001 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 1
This report considers the approval of the 2001 budget and service charges for
Special Service District No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2001 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District
No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to
Hennepin County.
5b 2001 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 2
This report considers the approval of the 2001 budget and service charges for
Special Service District No. 2.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2001 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the
3
annual service charge to Hennepin County.
6. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
6a. Case Nos. 00-52-PUD and 00-51-VAR Preliminary PUD and Variance for a
mixed use/residential-office building at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard for Park
Land Development.
Preliminary PUD for a 49,900 S.F. office and 263 residential dwelling unit
development with PUD allowable modifications to increase building height,
increase floor area ratio, and reduce parking. Variance to reduce usable open space
to 54 to 60% of requirement.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the preliminary PUD and variance for
reduced usable open space, subject to conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission and staff.
6b. Request by Marshall Kieffer for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of
Kieffer’s Addition, including variances to the subdivision ordinance for
reduced sidewalks and reduced easements and to waive the requirement for a
Development Agreement; and variances to the Zoning Ordinance for reduced
lot width and reduced building setbacks
Case Nos. 00-53-S and 00-54-VAR
2621 Virginia Avenue South, 8019 26th St. W, and 8025 26th St. W.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving variances to the
Zoning Ordinance for reduced lot widths and reduced
building setbacks.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving Preliminary and Final
Plat of Kieffer’s Addition, including variances to the
Subdivision Ordinance for reduced sidewalks and reduced
easements, and to waive the requirement for a Development
Agreement, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
6c. Park Commons TIF District
This report considers a resolution calling for a public hearing on the establishment
of the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1. The new district will encompass the Park Commons East
Redevelopment Area.
Recom
mended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the
establishment of the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Adoption of the Proposed
Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor.
4
6d. MSP Real Estate Subordination and Consent
This report considers subordinating the EDA’s first mortgage on the Mill
City property and city property when sold. It also considers executing a
consent letter required by MSP Real Estate’s lender.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize execution of the consent letter and
the Real Estate Mortgage Subordination Agreement.
6d. MSP Real Estate Subordination and Consent
This report considers subordinating the EDA’s first mortgage on the Mill
City property and city property when sold. It also considers executing a
consent letter required by MSP Real Estate’s lender.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize execution of the consent letter and
the Real Estate Mortgage Subordination Agreement.
6e. Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement between the
EDA, the City, and TOLD Development Company.
. This report considers approving the Third Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between Meridian
Properties (TOLD Development Company), the City and the EDA relating to
the Park Commons East redevelopment project.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the Third Amendment to the Amended
and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement between
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development LLC, the
City, and the EDA relating to the Park Commons East
redevelopment project.
7. Requests and Communications from the Public
8. Boards and Committees
a. Reappointment of Bill Gavzy to the Housing Authority for a Commission
ending June 30, 2005
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 6, 2000
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
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); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); Public
Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Human Resource
Manager (Ms. Gohman); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of October 16, 2000
Page 11, Item 7c, Paragraph 2, change “wants” to “wanted”.
Page 10, Item 7c, Paragraph 2, change “execution” to “excavation”.
Page 11, Item 7c, Paragraph 5, change “CMS” to “CSM”.
Page 8, Item 5a, Paragraph 4, add name of resident “Paul Hovde”.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discus sion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the
agenda with the addition of Consent Item 4.b.3 as Item 6j. The motion passed 7-0
b. Approval of Consent Items
6
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve
the following Consent Items with the deletion of 4.b.3. The motion passed 7-0.
1. Waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2. Motion to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize publication of
an Ordinance Amending sections 6-155 and 11-103 of the Municipal Code
regarding declaration of snow and ice as a nuisance and notice to property owner.
3. Motion to Approve Contract for Organizational Developmental Services with
Bridget Gothberg effective 1/1/01
4. Motion to approve extension of Frauenshuh’s Final PUD and Final Plat
consideration until May 31, 2001 – Case No. 99-19-PUD
5. Motion t6o adopt resolution amending the Park Place Plaza – Costco Wholesale
Case No. 95-51-PUD (Amended)
6. Accept the following reports for filing
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of September 20, 2000
b. Planning Commission Minutes of October 18, 2000
c. Vendor Claim List
d. Charter Commission Minutes of June 14, July 12, Aug 9, Sept 13
7. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of Change Order No.
3 in the amount of $41,654.80 to Contract NO. 14-98 with Hardrives, Inc.
increasing the total contract amount from $2,279,186.54 to $2,320,841.34.
8. Final Payment:
F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $13,552.76
Franklin Ave. Storm Sewer Improvements
Contract No. 77-00
5. Public Hearings
5a. Application for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Costco Wholesale
Corporation, 5801 W. 16th Street, St. Louis Park
Cindy Reichert, City Clerk, presented a brief staff report and recommended approval.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Gary Gandrud of Costco and other representatives were present. Mr. Gandrud explained that
employees would receive training in the issues in alcohol sales to minors.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Latz if there was a separate entrance for liquor sales.
Mr. Gandrud stated that there were separate entrances for each section of the store and that the
liquor store could not be accessed from the main store from within.
7
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve
issuance of the license. The motion passed 7-0.
5b. CASE NO. 00-49-CP Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve a
resolution for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from IND-
Industrial to PRK-Park for a portion of property located at 2501 Edgewood Avenue South
contingent upon approval by the Metropolitan Council and authorize publication of summary
resolution. The motion passed 7-0.
5c. CASE NO. 00-50-CP Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
resolution amending Comprehensive Plan contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval and
authorize summary resolution The motion passed 7-0.
5d. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator was present to answer questions.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Jane Ramer, Attorney representing Everest Connections Corporation, briefly commented on the
company’s background and explained that Everest’s primary goal was competitive neutrality
with the current incumbent. She stated that Everest recentl y signed a construction contract with
a company called Quanta Construction and its subsidiary in Minnesota and secured permission
from the State of Minnesota to provide telephone and long distance service and were in a
position to move forward quickly once Everest was able to reach agreement on a franchise.
Eric Brown, 2 Carlson Parkway, Director of Market Development with Wide Open West,
presented a brief update. He stated that WOW has signed a contract with Phonefree.com to
allow residents to use telephones in their homes and be able to provide two-way internet speeds
up to 100 megabytes. He stated that currently WOW had 19 franchises in the United States.
8
Lance Leupold, Time Warner Cable stated that he appreciated that the current franchise was
non-exclusive and it was well within the authority of the City to grant additional franchises. He
stated that Time Warner was in competitive business for high speed internet access and
welcomed the challenge of increased competition. He stated that Time Warner expected the
City, with any consideration of any proposal, to fully consider the legal, technical, and financial
qualifications of each applicants and be subject to all the franchise obligations and burdens
imposed on Time Warner and that they were very competed to working with the City to assure
the necessary coordination so that there was minimal disruption to Time Warner and the right
of way.
Councilmember Brimeyer briefly commented on the future changes and asked if other
municipalities were considering additional franchises.
Reg Dunlap stated that the entire Twin City area has been approached by these Everest and
WOW and another company called Seran.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to continue
the public hearing to December 4, 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
6a. School District #283 request for funding from Cable TV franchise fees
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve payment
to the School District of an operating grant of $37,400 for 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Request for Lobbying funds from Minnesota Association of Community
Telecommunications Advisors (MACTA)
Councilmember Young questioned if the amount was adequate to send a strong message to our
State Senator that he was working at cross purposes with his constituents. He suggested
directing staff to draft a strongly worded letter asking him to please cease and desist and remind
him that he was representing St. Louis Park and this proposed legislation would work against the
City and its residents.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that the legislation, if approved, could have a detrimental impact on St.
Louis Park.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned about giving up local control of the franchise fee and
suggested inviting Senator Kelly to address the Council again on this issue.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
payment to MACTA of $6,500 to support the lobbying effort. The motion passed 6-1.
Councilmember Young was opposed.
9
6c. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13, Part 3 of the St. Louis Park
Municipal Code Concerning the Sale, Consumption and Display of Alcoholic
Beverages
Cindy Reichert, City Clerk presented a staff report and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve first
reading and set second reading for November 20, 2000. The motion passed 6-0-1.
Councilmember Latz abstained.
6d. Second Reading of Three Ordinances Relating to Licensing of Contractors,
Businesses, Temporary Uses, Animals and Courtesy Benches Amending Chapters
8, 11, 13, and Adopting Chapter 16 on Licensing Regulations.
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections presented a staff report. He reviewed the proposed
ordinance that would replace existing regulations except for those associated with gambling and
liquor with a new chapter on licensing in addition to adopting several Minnesota State Codes by
reference. He noted the addition of Section 11-1201 and minor fee change.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the representative for the mechanical engineers had any
additional concerns after the language revisions.
Mr. Hoffman stated that the representative had reviewed the updated proposal and believed the
language was improved and was acceptable.
Councilmember Latz commended staff for their hard work and believed that this was a dramatic
demonstration of the City’s efforts to streamline government and become easier for businesses
and others who need licenses to receive them.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt an
Ordinance amending Chapter 11 of The St. Louis Park Municipal Code By Adopting Certain
Environmental and Public Health Regulations By Reference. The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt an
Ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code, concerning open burning
within the City of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7-0.
Paul Hovde, 2222 Edgewood Avenue South, questioned what the perceived problem was with
the competency card. He didn’t believe these changes were good for the residents of St. Louis
Park and was going to be an administrative nightmare. He stated he would like the system to
remain the way it was rather than to change to the inclusion of the continuing education where it
was not mandated State wide.
Don Bell, Vogt Heating and Air Conditioning, stated that he agreed with streamlining, but didn’t
believe these changes were going to improve the situation. He questioned the administrative
process and how this helped the contractors, residents and the City.
10
Mr. Hoffman explained the administration process associated with the annual competency
renewal and indicated that staff supported state wide licensing of mechanical contractors because
of the history of concerns with mechanical contracting.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if a certificate of attendance from a manufacturer was
acceptable.
Mr. Hoffman stated that the City intended to accept the certificate from manufacturers.
Councilmember Nelson hoped that the City would work with other municipalities to help them
establish that their requirements would match, but remain flexible if they didn’t. He
recommended bringing this issue to the attention of the City’s representatives at the State Capital
and was in favor of matching any lobbying effort by the mechanical contractor association.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt an
Ordinance deleting portions of Chapter 11, 13, and 15 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code and
adopting a new Chapter 16 concerning licensing of businesses and activities within the City. The
motion passed 7-0.
6e. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing 2001 Licensing Fees for Contractors,
Businesses, Temporary Uses, Animals and Courtesy Benches.
Mr. Hoffman, Director of Inspections commented briefly on the license fees.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a
resolution establishing license fees for the year 2001. The motion passed 7-0.
6f. Establishing employer contributions for employer-provider cafeteria style benefit
programs for 2001 covering non-union positions and the City Manager.
Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager presented a staff report and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a
resolution establishing City contribution toward employees’ cafeteria benefits plan for non-
union, non-exempt (eligible for overtime) and exempt (not eligible for overtime) employees
including the City Manager for 2001. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson opposed.
6g. Non Union Compensation – 2001
Nancy Goham, Human Resources Manager presented a staff report and recommended approval.
Councilmember Sanger questioned how a performance bonus for Paid-On-Call Firefighters
could be the same for everyone no matter what their performance was and why the bonus wasn’t
reflective of the actual level of the performance of the individual.
11
Mr. Meyer, City Manager explained that when the performance bonus was established it was
primarily for the purpose of making sure that the City got the firefighters to respond because they
were on-call and wanted to get a sufficient number of firefighters to respond. He stated that the
bonus was reflected on the number of firefighter responses.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if this was set up with PERA.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager clarified that the City didn’t want to create a relief association, so it
was set up this way with the idea that the City would have the benefit of a relief association, and
immediate return availability of money to the firefighters in the year that they worked instead of
deferred into the future, and the City would continue to attempt to work at the legislative level to
raise the minimal level for PERA.
Councilmember Brimeyer recommended that this issue be revisited next year.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the
resolution confirming the City Manager’s decision to set the general increase for non-union
salaries for 2001 and revise the City Managers contract. The motion passed 7-0.
6h. CASE NO. 00-47-Z Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, approve first
reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment changing the designation on property located at
3345 Dakota Avenue South from R2 to C1. Set second reading for November 20, 2000. The
motion passed 7-0.
6i. CASE NO. 00-48-Z Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended approval.
Councilmember Sanger asked what use does the railroad make of the CPR property on Cedar
Lake Road.
Ms. Erickson stated that is was an active part of the north/south CPR line and was also used by
Twin Cities and Western.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve
first reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment and set second reading for November 20,
2000. The motion passed 7-0.
6j. Motion to Approve Contract for Organizational Development Services with
Bridget Gothberg effective 1/1/01
12
Councilmember Sanger stated that she agreed with the overall goal of requesting the services of
Bridget Gothberg, but for legal reasons she was against bringing Bridget Gothberg on as an
independent contractor rather than a City employee.
Charlie Meyer, City Manager commented on the experimental nature of this work and contract
and was willing to continue to work with the city attorney and staff to make sure everything was
legally conforming and in the best interest of both parties.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that this item be tabled to explore the options, but
philosophically didn’t want to delay this issue any longer.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to support
bringing Bridget Gothberg on as an Organizational Development consultant starting 1/1/01, but
not specifying the mechanism and details of how this will be worked out, and direct the City
Manager and City Attorney to continue to work on achieving the best possible mechanism to
accomplish that. The motion passed 7-0.
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions - None
8. Board and Committees - None
9. Communications
From the City Manager – None
From the Mayor – Mayor Jacobs encouraged all residents to get out and vote on Election
Day and to contact the City with any questions on registration or precinct location.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
13
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Minutes of November 6, 2000
The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa,
and Robert Young.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning and Zoning Supervisor
(Ms. Jeremiah) and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Park Commons Update
Bob Cunningham of TOLD gave Council an update on the changes made since the last study
session they had attended. They are currently working with the Parks and Recreation
department to determine parking needs for recreation programming in the area. He also
informed council that the amount of for-sale housing has been increased as well as the height of
several of the buildings.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about townhome and condominium living and the configuration
of the housing units.
Councilmember Nelson asked about the original market study that had been done with
Zimmerman and Associates and if the mix presented in that study was within the parameters of
the original project proposed. Ms. Jeremiah replied that it would. Mr. Cunningham of TOLD
stated that current plans involve 660-680 housing units.
Councilmember Santa felt that using Mobile City Hall to visit the proposed site may prove
helpful.
Councilmember Brimeyer did not feel that there was a problem with the proposed height of the
buildings.
Mr. Cunningham stated his concern with housing units facing the parking ramp but indicated that
they are working a solution.
Ms. Jeremiah reported that she had spoken with the City attorney regarding the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The attorney stated that there should not be any complications
with using the original EAW for the project as currently proposed. Councilmember Nelson
urged the rest of the Council to proceed carefully concerning the EAW and any changes in the
number of proposed residential units.
14
The Council recommended to the developer to try to keep the number of housing units within the
count used in the EAW. Councilmember Nelson felt that limiting the development to three
levels on Excelsior Blvd would help the surrounding neighborhood accept the project. Mr.
Cunningham was concerned that three stories would not work in terms of parking for the
development. He added that the building heights are varied and changes in the architecture
would change the facades and heights of the building.
A public hearing regarding Park Commons is scheduled for the near future.
2. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Meeting of July 10, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:02 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 (Mr. Pires), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Klev e),
Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Deputy Fire Chief (Mr.
Stemmer), and Administrative Clerk (Ms. Olson).
1. Excelsior Blvd Traffic Study
Jack Forsland of BRW was present at the meeting.
Mr. Harmening explained that Council had authorized an analysis and compilation of previous
studies to be done. Mr. Forsland reported that six major studies had been done in the last twenty
years with the most recent in 1999. Councilmember Latz asked for clarification on some of the
dates. In comparing the figures from 1992 to 1998, he pointed out that the traffic counts had
decreased.
Mr. Harmening added that the Park Nicollet campus has exits flowing onto several streets and
not just Excelsior Blvd. Mr. Latz stated that he did not want to see a short term spike in traffic
counts caused by construction activity effect the long term traffic situation. Mr. Forsland
suggested an increase in access points.
Councilmember Nelson asked about the source of the data from 1980. Mr. Forsland replied that
City traffic counts indicated that other minor streets have stayed relatively the same.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned with cut through traffic.
Mr. Forsland indicated they should look towards the neighborhood to see the level of service
(threshold of traffic) that can be accommodated and suggested that an analysis be completed. He
felt that the western part of the corridor was acceptable in its current state.
Mayor Jacobs felt the next step is to meet with the neighborhood. Mr. Harmening suggested an
open house and forming several focus groups. Councilmember Sanger inquired as to the purpose
of the focus groups. Mr. Harmening responded that it would be to encourage public
participation, stating the neighborhood residents are the ones who see the day to day activity
such as cut through traffic. Mr. Forsland indicated that he had meet with the neighborhood and
although many issues were raised, nothing specific was mentioned by the group. Many had their
own individual concerns.
Councilmember Nelson thought it would be valuable to know the patterns of cut through traffic
and it was an important public process.
16
Councilmember Nelson felt the timing of the meeting was important and perhaps it should be
held in the summer. Mr. Harmening felt they should move ahead as soon as possible and that
attendance would not be a concern.
Councilmember Brimeyer brought up the question of how information would be gathered. The
Council discussed obtaining information using computer predicted pattern counts or involving
the neighborhood to retrieve information.
Councilmember Sanger had confidence that Excelsior Blvd. could handle the amount of traffic.
Mayor Jacobs inquired about the bridge widening project scheduled for 2001-2002. Mr.
Harmening replied that it would be a year long process.
The issue was raised regarding redevelopment of the south side of Excelsior Blvd. Mr.
Harmening replied that the Planning Commission would keep the area for single family homes
and would not pursue development. Mr. Meyer stated that they are zoning standards and
enforcements. Councilmember Brimeyer clarified that they want to minimize the impact on
adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Harmening stated that he would provide the Council with an update after speaking with
staff.
2. Update on TIF Districts / Debt Management
Ms. McGann gave a review of three TIF districts and the outstanding debt owed on those
districts. She stated that Park Commons TIF district seems to be fiscally sound and that the
administrative fee should only need to be 8% rather than the 10% allowed.
Council and staff discussed the local government aid penalty.
Ms. McGann instructed the Council that debt incurred from the TIF Districts could be paid down
or restructured. Council discussed several options and determined that money should be used to
pay down the debt.
3. 2001 Budget Update
Councilmembers Brimeyer and Santa commented on the new format of the budget and felt that it
was more understandable.
Ms. McGann indicated that a three percent tax levy increase would create money for the general
budget. Council briefly debated the percent of increase for the tax levy. Mr. Meyer felt that a
three percent increase compensates for services provided, however anything above that may
surpass what is needed. Councilmember Sanger inquired if the assessed value will be raised due
to actual cost of the property.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that there may be possibilities now for certain needs and
projects. He felt that certain programs and projects should be funded while in a position to do so,
such as the technology fund. Councilmember Latz inquired about future expenditures. Ms.
17
McGann replied that staff would like to increase the tax levy to provide a permanent funding
source for the Park Improvement and Technology Replacement funds.
Ms. McGann indicated that the following initiatives are also being considered by staff:
Wooddale/36th St study, Texa-Tonka study continuation, radio study, GIS/ Application Support
staff, additional organizational development, finance staff support, and photo imaging machine.
Mr. Meyer stated that there is no major need for building maintenance, as it is relatively new.
He added that Mr. Pires has a three-year plan for replacement of technology equipment, not
including radios. Councilmember Sanger inquired about the radio study. Mr. Pires replied that it
would be an objective review of communicating and connecting with other communities. Mr.
Meyer felt the greatest need is for technology in the Public Safety department. Councilmember
Brimeyer felt the study should be funded out of the general fund and Mayor Jacobs agreed.
Mr. Meyer reported that the organizational development training is going quite well. He would
like to work internally or with a consultant to provide consistent training for employees.
Council discussed with staff several of the proposed support positions and the need for such.
Ms. McGann stated that she will return with a balanced budget in August after meeting with
department heads.
4. Transfer of Multi-Family Residential Housing Inspection Program to Inspections
Department
Mr. Hoffman reported that apartment inspections has moved from the Fire Department to the
Inspections Department. He stated that they are in the process of hiring an inspector whose main
function will be to inspect multi-family housing units. The Environmental Inspection division is
trying to put emphasis on property maintenance.
Mr. Stemmer stated that they would like to concentrate on the commercial aspect of the
inspections and on preventive care. He added that funds will be transferred to the Inspections
department to cover costs as they will not be filling one of their positions open in the Fire
Department.
Mr. Meyer stated that multi-family housing inspections go past fire prevention to issues with
housing codes.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned with the public’s perception of this. Mr. Hoffman stated
that their goal was to get property owners to become serious about maintaining their property.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired as to how inspections were done in the past. Mr. Stemmer
reported that the primary focus was on fire safety and prevention and now they would expand
their focus to all types of health and safety violations.
Councilmember Sanger asked how duplexes or condominiums would be dealt with. Mr.
Stemmer replied that they would need to have more than three units to require inspection.
18
Council agreed to move ahead with the plan.
5. Communications
Councilmember Nelson felt that the bond application made by Benilde- St. Margaret school
should be looked over carefully. Council then discussed the bonds for which they applied and
the process to be followed when applying for them.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
19
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of November 20, 2000
5a. 2001 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 1
This report considers the approval of the 2001 budget and service charges for
Special Service District No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2001 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District
No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to
Hennepin County.
Background: On June 3, 1996, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service
charge for Special Service District No. 1. Annually, the City Council must adopt a service
charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service
District Advisory Board (Advisory Board) moved to approve the 2001 budget and service
charges, as attached, at it’s September 7, 2000 meeting. The notice of public hearing was
published in the Sun Sailor on November 1 & November 8. The meeting notice was sent to all
property owners within the District more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position: As of June 30, 2000, the Special Service
District No. 1 had a fund balance of $98,455. Staff and the Advisory Board have agreed that the
operating reserve should be maintained at a level of at least 50% of the annual operating budget,
which would be $57,750.
Maximum Service Charge Restrictions/Budgeting Parameters: In accordance with Section
2.04 of Resolution No. 96-87 (original service charge resolution), the service charge increase
annually is limited by an inflationary adjustment. This adjustment is based upon the applicable
consumer price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
The maximum allowable CPI increase is 5% from the previous year’s service charge. Since
there is no increase in service charges proposed for 2001, the inflation adjustment allowance will
not apply.
Proposed 2001 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of
a budget of $119,500 (same as set in 2000) and a service charge of $106,000 (the same as set in
2000). The Advisory Board will use a portion of the budget reserve fund balance to pay for the
$13,500 budget expenditure exceeding the amount of service charges collected. Please note that
the actual service charges in 2000 were reduced by using available fund balance. No comparable
reduction is proposed in 2001.
20
2001 City Portion of Service Charge: The City incurs service charges for the property located
at 5005 W. 36th St. (Recreation Center/Wolfe Park), which is in Special Service District No. 1.
Charges paid in 2000 were $19,587 after the service charge adjustment. The proposed fee for
2001 is $27,379.
Recommendation: Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends
Council approve the resolution as requested.
Attachments
2001 Proposed Budget
2001 Proposed Service Charges
Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
21
RESOLUTION NO. 00-144
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2001 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 1
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the City Council created Special Service
District No. 1 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are identified on Exhibit
“A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 96-87, the City Council is authorized to impose service
charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2006 for taxes payable in
said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 96-87, the maximum service charge to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)
data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the annual service charge for 2001 meets the requirements set forth in
the inflation adjustment cap; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 96-87, the Service Charges shall be
payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of
ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by November
30, 2000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as
follows:
1. The 2001 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $119,500 is hereby approved as
recommended by the Special Service District No. 1 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2001 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 is $106,000 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
22
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT # 1
STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Quarter 2 - 2000
2001 2000 2000 2000
Budget Budget Year to Date Anticipated
(proposed)(adopted)
Revenue
Interest on investments 41 200
Charges for services 80,343 80,343 80,343
Other payments 967
Service Fees 25,657 25,657 25,657
Total Revenue 106,000 106,000 1,007 106,200
Expenditures
Parts / Supplies 2,500 1,577 2,000
Banner replacement 1,000 1,000
Special Signage - traffic, parking, events 500
Tree and shrub replacement 1,000 1,000 150 700
Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements
Electrical service for pedestrian lighting 2,500 500 987 2,200
Electrical service for decorative lighting 500
Trash removal and recycling costs 1,500 1,000 240 750
Banner installation and removal 2,500 3,500 855 2,000
Low level pedestrian lighting and pole repair 1,000 500
Installation, maintenance and removal of decorative lighting 5,000
Maintenance & repair of sidewalks and related elements 5,000 5,000
Landscape maintenance services 22,500 22,500 11,120 24,000
Irrigation System maintenance and repair 3,000 2,500 1,750 2,500
Cleaning of street, sidewalk, and alley & graffiti removal 3,500 2,500 500
Snow and ice removal 62,500 62,500 25,140 40,140
Administration / Promotional 6,000 6,000 3,500
Security system installation and maintenance
Security personnel
Capital Expenses 5,000 5,000 1,000
Total Expenditures (Chargeable)119,500 119,500 (1)41,819 79,290
Total 106,000 106,000
(1)Funds allocated from operating reserve to maintain current
budget amount
Revenue over (under) expenditures (13,500)(13,500)26,911
Other financing sources (uses):
Net increase in fund balance (13,500)(13,500)26,911
Fund balance - January 1, 1999
Fund Balance adjustment for 2000
Fund balance - January 1, 2000 71,544
Capital reserve 5,000
Fund balance - Current Period 84,955 98,455
23
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Exhibit "A"
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
PAR.OWNER ACTUAL ACTUAL PROPOSED
NO.1999 2000 2000 2001
SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE
(unadjusted)(adjusted)
(1)(2)
1 3601 Park Center Boulevard PCOB Properties LLC 5,793 5,489 3,730 5,489
2 3601 Sth 100 South Dayton Hudson Corp.12,170 11,764 8,068 11,764
3 3777 Park Center Boulevard Park Center Ltd.12,362 12,220 8,465 12,220
4 5400 39th Street West AAA Minneapolis 6,276 6,012 4,106 6,012
5 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNMC Holdings 5,140 4,751 3,190 4,751
6 5500 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC 6,122 5,589 3,729 5,589
7 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC 1,721 1,571 1,048 1,571
8 5100 Excelsior Boulevard PNMC Holdings 1,972 2,052 1,453 2,052
9 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNMC Holdings 4,912 5,773 4,281 5,773
10 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard PNMC Holdings 1,090 1,281 950 1,281
11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Medcenter Inc.3,725 3,720 2,589 3,720
12 5000 Excelsior Boulevard PNMC Holdings 869 846 582 846
13 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Koblas 682 633 426 633
14 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Medical Center 524 510 351 510
15 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Medical Center 777 756 520 756
16 4951 Excelsior Boulevard PNMC Holdings 5,476 5,041 3,378 5,041
17 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.701 692 480 692
18 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.899 917 643 917
19 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.653 644 446 644
20 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Corrigan Properties 8,479 8,361 5,785 8,361
21 5005 36th Street West City of St. Louis Park 25,656 27,379 19,587 27,379
106,000 106,000 73,806 $106,000
Note:
(1)The adjusted 2000 service charge provided the property owners with a rebate from the operation fund balance.
(2)The proposed 2001 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / proportions used
for the initial service charge collection.
Authorized 2001 Service Charge
ADDRESS
24
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of November 20, 2000
5b 2001 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 2
This report considers the approval of the 2001 budget and service charges for
Special Service District No. 2.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2001 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the
annual service charge to Hennepin County.
Background: On December 1, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service
charge for Special Service District No. 2. Annually, the City Council must adopt a service
charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service
District Advisory Board (Advisory Board) moved to approve the 2001 budget and service
charges, as attached, at it’s October 19, 2000 meeting. The notice of public hearing was
published in the Sun Sailor on November 1 & November 8. The meeting notice was sent to all
property owners within the District more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position: As of June 30, 2000, the Special Service
District No. 2 had a fund balance of $12,035. Staff and the Advisory Board have agreed that the
operating reserve should be maintained at a level of at least 50% of the annual operating budget,
which would be $16,500.
Maximum Service Charge Restrictions/Budgeting Parameters: In accordance with Section
2.04 of Resolution No. 97-165 (original service charge resolution), the service charge increase
annually is limited by an inflationary adjustment. This adjustment is based upon the applicable
consumer price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
The maximum allowable CPI increase is 5% from the previous year’s service charge. Since
there is no increase in service charges proposed for 2001, the inflation adjustment allowance will
not apply.
Proposed 2001 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board is recommending approval
of a budget of $33,000 (same as set in 2000) and a service charge of $33,000 (same as set in
2000). Please note that the actual service charges in 2000 were reduced by using available fund
balance. No comparable reduction is proposed in 2001.
2001 City Portion of Service Charge: The City incurs service charges for the property located
at 3929 Excelsior Blvd., which is within Special Service District No. 2. Charges paid in 2000
were $40 (after the service charge adjustment). The proposed fee for 2001 is $106.
25
Recommendation: Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends
Council approve the resolution as requested.
Attachments
2001 Proposed Budget
2001 Proposed Service Charges
Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
RESOLUTION NO. 00-145
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2001 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the City Council created Special Service
District No. 2 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are identified on
Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 97-165, the City Council is authorized to impose service
charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2008 for taxes payable in
said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 97-165, the maximum service charge to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)
data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the annual service charge for 2001 is not proposed and therefore is
not subject to the inflation adjustment cap; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 97-165, the Service Charges shall be
payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of
ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by November
30, 2000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as
follows:
1. The 2001 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $33,000 is hereby approved as
recommended by the Special Service District No. 2 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2001 service charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $33,000 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
27
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT # 2
STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
Quarter 2 - 2000
2001 2000 2000 2000
Budget Budget Year to Date Anticipated
(Proposed)(adopted)
Revenue
Interest on investments 0 0 2 100
Charges for services 33,000 33,000 33,000
Other payments (Residential snow removal)470
Service Fees
Total Revenue 33,000 33,000 2 33,570
Expenditures
Banner replacement
Parts / Supplies 500
Special Signage - traffic, parking, events
Tree and shrub replacement 2,000 4,000 1,000
Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements
Electrical service for pedestrian lighting 2,000 1,500 589 1,500
Electrical service for decorative lighting
Trash removal and recycling costs
Banner installation and removal 1,500 1,500 429 1,000
Low level pedestrian lighting and pole repair 1,000 1,000 500
Installation, maintenance and removal of decorative lighting
Maintenance, repair, and cleaning of commercial areas 1,000 1,500
Landscape maintenance services 13,000 13,500 750
Irrigation System maintenance and repair 2,000 5,469 12,000
Street, sidewalk, and alley cleaning
Poster, handbill, and graffiti removal 500 500
Snow and ice removal 7,500 7,500 500
Administration / Promotional 500 500 1,799 3,799
Security system installation and maintenance
Security personnel
Capital Reserves 1,500 1,500
Total Expenditures 33,000 33,000 8,286 21,049
Revenue over (under) expenditures 0 0 (8,284)
Other financing sources (uses):
Net increase in fund balance 0 0 (8,284)
Fund balance - January 1, 1999
Fund balance adjustment for 2000
Fund balance - January 1, 2000 20,319
Capital Reserves 1,500
Fund balance - Current Period 10,535 12,035
28
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Exhibit "A"
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
PAR.OWNER ACTUAL ACTUAL PROPOSED
NO.1999 2000 2000 2001
SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE
(unadjusted)(adjusted)
(1)(2)
1 3920 Excelsior Blvd Al's Liquor 1,679 1,514 657 1,514
2 3924 Excelsior Blvd American Inn 2,015 1,816 789 1,816
3 3542 Minikadha Ct.Sage Company
4 3551 Huntington Ave.Frank Murray
5 4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 1,247 1,134 485 1,134
6 4120 Excelsior Blvd Baldwin & Mattson 1,204 1,086 471 1,086
7 3921 Excelsior Blvd Miller Management Co.639 576 250 576
8 3939 Excelsior Blvd Anderson-Cherne, Inc.1,051 954 410 954
9 3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James
10 4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan
11 4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller
12 4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams
13 4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong
14 3601 Huntington Ave.Martin & Alice Fowler
15 3901 Excelsior Blvd Minikahda Union "76"1,285 1,172 499 1,172
16 3900 Excelsior Blvd Modelette Inc./Anderson Cleaners 325 309 122 309
17 3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 109 106 40 106
18 3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.701 627 276 627
19 3912 Excelsior Blvd Al's Liquor 1,672 1,501 657 1,501
20 3947 Excelsior Blvd Miller Management 1,618 1,453 635 1,453
21 4300 Excelsior Blvd Vacant sub building 704 656 269 656
22 4306 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 520 476 201 476
23 4308 Excelsior Blvd Office building 629 566 246 566
24 4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 1,417 1,306 547 1,306
25 4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 708 638 277 638
26 3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington
27 4409 Excelsior Blvd JEM Enterprises LLC 840 785 321 785
28 4415 Excelsior Blvd 629 577 244 577
29 4419 Excelsior Blvd Smith Motors 1,378 1,253 536 1,253
30 4424 Excelsior Blvd 1,103 998 431 998
31 4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 1,067 965 417 965
32 4320 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 2,096 1,931 808 1,931
33 4400 Excelsior Blvd Kamps/Craven Prop. Partnership 4,150 3,723 1,630 3,723
34 4140 Excelsior Blvd Slumberland 2,070 1,865 810 1,865
35 3600 Huntington Ave.Elmer Nordstrom
36 4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
37 4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
38 4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali
39 4221 Excelsior Blvd Nat'l Gear Molding Inc.445 414 170 414
40 4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix
41 4201 Excelsior Blvd Ackerberg & Assoc. Architects 2,089 1,892 815 1,892
42 4200 Excelsior Blvd Dijomi 1,370 1,236 536 1,236
43 4150 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 1,639 1,474 643 1,474
Totals 36,397 33,000 14,194 33,000
Unfunded Snow Removal 3,078
TOTAL BUDGET 39,475
Note:
(1)The adjusted 2000 service charge provided the property owners with a rebate from the operation
fund balance.
(2)The proposed 2001 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology and
proportions used for the initial service charge collection.
Authorized 2001 Service Charge
ADDRESS
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of November 20, 2000
6a. Case Nos. 00-52-PUD and 00-51-VAR Preliminary PUD and Variance for a
mixed use/residential-office building at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard for Park
Land Development.
Preliminary PUD for a 49,900 S.F. office and 263 residential dwelling unit development with PUD
allowable modifications to increase building height, increase floor area ratio, and reduce parking.
Variance to reduce usable open space to 54 to 60% of requirement.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the preliminary PUD and variance for
reduced usable open space, subject to conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission and staff.
Background and Project Description:
We have received an application Office Depot Inc. (Park Land Development) for a preliminary
PUD and variance for a 25-story mixed use (office and residential) building on the old Cooper
Theater site at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard.
Site Data:
Parcel Size: 166,405 S.F. (3.87 acres)
30
The proposed project is a mixed-use development consisting of 49,900 square feet of office on
two floors and 263 residential apartment units with two floors of apartment commons areas and
two levels of underground parking. The project also has two surface parking lots, one for
residential and the other for the office uses. Apartment amenities will include a swimming pool,
landscaped terraces, an indoor gym, a tennis court and party rooms. The applicant is requesting
a variance for usable open space and PUD modifications for parking, building height and floor
area ratio.
Site Data:
Lot Size: 166,405 S.F.
Proposed Building Size: 362,024 S.F.
Proposed Building Height: 25 stories
Proposed Ground Floor Area: 38,654 S.F.
Proposed Uses:
Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,900 S.F.
Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 units
Parking:
Office
Total Proposed 155
Structured 102
Surface 53
Required 140 spaces (with PUD and other
allowable reductions)
Residential
Total Proposed 370
Structured 349
Surface 21
Required 370 spaces (with PUD and other
Allowable reductions)
Usable Open Space:
Proposed 57,270 (meeting 54% of requirement)
Required 105,200 (without PUD reduction)
Proposed reduction 46%
Reduction allowed by PUD 20%
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office
Zoning Designation: Office
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the preliminary PUD and variance on
October 18, 2000. Although some members of the Planning Commission struggled with the
variance for usable open space, the Commission did recommended approval of the variance and
the preliminary PUD (see attached Planning Commission minutes). The applicant agreed to
make several adjustments to the plan as suggested by the Planning Commission to improve the
usable open space if the Council so desires. These modifications include adding approximately
6,800 square feet of usable open space on the office building roof south of the residential tower
31
(would decrease variance to 61% of requirement without PUD reduction), adding a tot lot, and
eliminating the tennis court.
Issues:
Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Are all Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed
ordinance modifications?
Does the proposed variance meet the necessary criteria for approval?
Issues Analysis:
Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan description of the “Office” land use designation states, “This category
allows for concentrated areas of fairly intensive office and mixed-use development with high
floor area ratios and building heights……The O District also allows other limited uses such as
hotels, parking ramps, residential, day care, retail and restaurants when part of a larger
development.” The total percentage of land in St. Louis Park designated for Office is 3%. The
proposed project is a vertical mixed-use, 25-story building with a floor area ratio of 2.5 and a
residential density of 63 units per acre.
.-,3 94
16T H ST W PARK PLACE BLVD SZARTHAN AVE SWAYZATA BLVD S
Subject
ct:
32
Plan By Neighborhood
“The development of additional office and apartment towers is expected to occur in this
neighborhood” and “all new development (except that which received preliminary approval prior
Subject
Mu nib ndy .s h p
Com pre hen s ive P la n
Res id ential Lo w D ens it y
Res id ential M ed ium D ens ity
Res id ential H igh D ens it y
Com m er cia l
Com m er cia l-M ix ed U s e
O f f ice
In dus t ria l
Civ ic
Civ ic -M ix ed U s e
Pa rk
Righ t o f W ay
Railr oa d
Comprehensive Plan
Land U se D esig natio ns
33
to adoption of this document) in this neighborhood is intended to be multi-storied and medium to
high intensity development.”
Livable Communities Goals
“Foster a community identity which emphasizes Livable Communities principles, including
mixed use, mixed income, pedestrian and transit oriented, high density, human scale
development”.
Housing and Employment Goals
Traffic Assignment Zone 588
1990 1997 2020 Increase
Housing Units 451 451 911 460
Employment 2654 2237 4837 2600
Subj ec t
.-,3 9 4
(/10 0
#C E D A R L A K E R D
#P A R K P LA C E B L V D S
#
Z A R T H A N A V E S
#
W A Y Z A T A B L V D S
#
16 T H S T W
589 58 8
587
Tr a ff i c A s si gn me n t Z o ne s
34
The City Council established in the Comprehensive Plan a projected growth in residential
dwelling units between 1997 and 2020 of 2,473. The City was required to assign growth to the
various TAZ zones based upon zoning and the ability of each area to accommodate additional
units. The TAZ that this parcel is located within extends from Park Place Boulevard to CP Rail
and from the northern City limits to the Burlington Northern SF railroad. The housing unit
increases assigned to this area were 461 units by 2020.
The projected increase of housing units identified in the Comprehensive Plan is partially being
met by the 84 units the Rottlund townhouse project is adding north of West 16th Street and west
of Zarthan Avenue. This project would add an additional 263 units to the area.
Are all Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
The current zoning on the subject property is “Office”. The residential portion of the proposed
development is permitted by PUD in the Office district.
Conditions established by Zoning Code:
a. The housing is part of a larger development permitted within the district.
The proposed development is a vertical mixed-use development with an office use on
the first two floors.
b. The building design and placement provide a desirable residential environment.
The residential portion of the building is so oriented to provide maximum privacy from the
adjacent buildings. The office and residential components of the building have separate
entrances, parking, and orientation. Added amenities include a swimming pool, tennis court,
work out rooms, party rooms, private balconies, landscaped terraces, and pedestrian paths
connecting to existing sidewalks.
c. Access to open space, plazas, and pedestrian ways is provided
Pedestrian ways are provided that link to the existing sidewalks on Wayzata Boulevard
and West 16th Street. The existing sidewalk system on West 16th Street will ultimately
connect to the regional trail on the south side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, to the
north to trails in Golden Valley, and currently to an existing health club and public
transit.
d. Housing related uses do not represent more than 25% of the first story or 25% of the second
story of any building in the development
Housing related uses meet this criteria.
e. A minimum of 400 square feet of open space is provided per dwelling unit and no more than
½ is located in the front yard.
35
The total required usable open space for this development is 84,160 S.F. This includes
400 S.F. per unit less 20% allowed by PUD. The developer is requesting a variance to
reduce the usable open space 57,270 S.F. See the full discussion under the variance
section below.
f. No dwelling units are located below the second story of the building. All housing related used
located within the first story shall be limited to common areas and rental offices.
No dwelling units are proposed for the first story of the building. Two residential units
are proposed for the second story. These include a manager’s unit and a guest unit.
g. The minimum spacing between buildings in a multi-building project is at least equal to the
average heights of the buildings except where dwellings share common walls
Only one building is proposed on the site.
h. All buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of internal
private roadways or parking lots.
All private driveways and parking lots meet this requirement. The exception is a loading
area to accommodate residential move-ins and a drop off area. No residential units are
located on the first floor of the building; these facilities do not interfere with privacy and
meet the intent of the Ordinance.
i. The density does not exceed 50 units per acre. The maximum density may be increased by up
to 50% at the sole discretion of the City Council if two or more of the following are provided:
(i) At least 80% of the required parking is provided in underground or above ground
structures, including all levels of parking ramps
(ii) Building are placed at or near the street right-of-way and off-street parking is screened
from the public right of way by buildings
(iii) At least 35% of the building ground coverage contains structures of six or more stories in
height, thereby conserving open space within the development site.
The proposed 68-unit per acre development meets the criteria of (i) and (iii) above. 80%
of the required parking is 408 stalls. A total of 453 parking spaces are located in
underground or above ground structures. Criteria (iii) requires 35% of the ground floor
area (0.35 x 38,654 S.F. = 13,529) to be covered with buildings of six or more stories.
The building foot print for the 25-story component is 15,422 S.F., so this criteria is met.
36
Are the PUD Ordinance requirements met, including the acceptability of the proposed
ordinance modifications?
PUD Modifications Requested:
The applicant is seeking PUD reductions for parking, building height and floor area ratios.
Subject
.-,394
(/100
Zoning
R1-S ingle Fa m ily
R2-S ingle Fa m ily
R3-Two Fam ily
R4-Multi-Family
RC-M ulti-Fa m ily
C1-N B H D C om merical
C2-G eneral C om me rcial
O-O ff ice
IP-Indu strial Park
IG-G e neral Industrial
MX-M ixed Use
Zoning
37
Parking. The applicant is seeking a 15% reduction in parking for the residential portion of
the development and 7.5% reduction in the office portion of the development. These
requested reductions are in addition to other allowable reductions for proximity to transit and
providing bicycle parking. The request is deemed appropriate given the close proximity of
the development to several thousand jobs, shopping and restaurant opportunities, and public
transit.
Building height. The PUD allows increases to building height with no maximum if
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Office designation allows “high floor area
ratios and building heights”.
Floor area ratio. The PUD allows increases to FARs based upon allowable densities and any
height or ground floor area restrictions. The Comprehensive Plan does not restrict the height
in this designation and there is no restriction on ground floor area in the “O” District.
Therefore, the increased FAR is allowable by PUD.
Traffic Study:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc has completed a traffic study. This study looked at A.M. and P.M.
peak hour trips on several intersections. The study concluded that the proposed office/residential
development could be supported by the future roadway system assuming the following planned
improvements:
Realignment of Zarthan Avenue between Wayzata Boulevard and West 16th Street (planned
city improvement).
Installation of a traffic signal at the realigned West 16th Street/Zarthan Avenue intersection
(planned city improvement funded by Costco and CSM/Rottlund developments).
Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of West 16th Street/Proposed Residential
driveway (planned Costco improvement).
Travel Demand Management:
The proposed project is located within the I-394 Travel demand Management District. The
office portion of the project falls well below the 0.6 FAR threshold requirement for developing a
travel demand management program for the site. The residential portion of the development is
considered a remedy for other workplace development in the area. The project is not required to
develop travel demand management.
Architectural Requirements:
The proposed building elevations indicate that except for the roof, the building will be 100%
class 1 materials. The indicated building materials include brick, a glass curtain wall, glass
windows and stone trim around the windows. The proposed roof material is metal.
Landscaping and Bufferyards:
The project meets all landscaping and bufferyard requirements.
38
Additional Requirements of other agencies:
A watershed district permit is required.
The project falls below the threshold for an EAW and an ISP.
Are all findings met for the requested variance?
The developer is proposing a project that meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements except for a
requested variance to reduce usable open space.
Currently the code requires 400 square feet of usable open space for each dwelling unit with a
20% reduction allowed by PUD. Zoning allows residential densities in the Office District of up
to 75 units per acre. On the proposed site, this would translate to 290 units. The open space
requirement for 290 units is 116,000 S.F. less the 20% allowable reduction by PUD or 92,800
S.F. The total site area in this case is 166,405. Usable open space with a minimum dimension of
30 feet in all directions would have to cover 56% of the site in order to comply with this
requirement. In this case, the applicant is proposing 263 units, which requires 105,200 S.F. of
usable open space less the 20% allowable reduction by PUD or 84,160 S.F. The proposed
variance is for a 46% reduction from the requirement prior to any PUD allowance. If the
Council so desires, the applicant will develop an additional 6,800 S.F. of usable open space over
the office roof. This would reduce the variance to a 31% reduction from the requirement prior
to any PUD allowance.
The Zoning Ordinance states that all seven of the following criteria must be met for the Board of
Zoning Appeals or the City Council to grant a variance.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states that the proposed development of the residential tower is intended to
fully utilize the higher building heights and densities allowed in the “Office” district. He
states that based upon the allowed densities and parking requirements, it is not possible to
provide the required open space on site unless it is all provided on roof tops.
Staff does agree with the applicant. The required usable open space cannot be reasonably
accommodated on the site and still redevelop the parcel at densities permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance and promoted by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is trying to
provide as much usable open space on the site as possible. A good portion of this is
being provided above the parking structures and on building roofs. In addition, over
8,000 square feet of interior space is being provided for common use activities including
39
party room, exercise room, lobby and library spaces. About 6,000 square feet of open
space that does not meet the 30-foot dimension standard, but is contiguous to other usable
open space areas also is not counted. Additionally, over 42,000 square feet of terraces
and private balconies are being provided. The interior common spaces, other outdoor
spaces with a dimension of less that 30 feet, and private terraces/balconies are not
included in the open space calculations but do provide some similar benefits to the
project.
The property currently contains a vacant non-conforming retail warehouse-type building
that cannot be reused for retail purposes because it has been vacant for a period more than
6 months. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow single use retail buildings within the
Office District. Staff has concluded that any reuse of this property will require the
demolition of the existing building. The existing non-conforming structure is an
“extraordinary or exceptional feature of the lot” that increases development costs and
requires higher density and the open space variance to make a new project feasible.
Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures
in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that adjacent properties are developed in much greater densities with
uses that do not require usable open space. The proposed development of this parcel is
consistent with that of adjacent parcels.
Staff does believe there is uniqueness to the lot in question. The non-conforming status of
the building occupying the subject parcel and lack of direct access from I-394 prevent
some other potential uses from being viable.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that the variance is necessary in order for the site to be utilized at a
density similar to adjacent properties and that the proposed development meets all other
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance including the PUD
standards for a higher standard of development.
Staff concurs with the applicant that the variance will allow for the development to
happen that is consistent with projected densities reflected in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
40
Staff agrees with the applicant that the variance would not impair light and air to the
surrounding properties due to the proposed location of the structure relative to adjacent
buildings. Staff also agrees that the development can be accommodated on the local
street system as is confirmed by a required traffic study and that the residential use will
meet Comprehensive Plan goals of providing housing in proximity to work places. Staff
believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
Again, staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed variance request will not
negatively impact the neighborhood. It also would not impair the property values in the
area or the health, safety, comfort, or morals. Staff believes that this criterion has been
satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has stated and staff concurs that the granting of this variance will not be
contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the development of high density
housing as described in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development will bring the
site closer to the standards typically found in the zoning district and will provide a
portion of the 437 housing units forecasted for this particular traffic assignment zone.
The housing provided by this development would bring residential uses within walking
distance of several thousand jobs. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states the variance is necessary to develop the property and the lack of such
a variance would make the project unfeasible based upon current land costs in this
vicinity.
Staff agrees that the variance will not be serving as a convenience to applicant but is
necessary to help alleviate a hardship. The ability to develop a lot in densities allowed by
zoning and also provide the required usable open space are only possible if a portion of
the open space is provided on rooftops. The applicant is providing a portion of the usable
open space over the underground parking garage and is willing to add open space above a
portion of the office building if the Council desires to reduce the variance, but still has a
hardship in meeting the requirement. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
Recommendation:
As staff believes the seven findings have been met, staff is recommending approval of a variance
for reduced usable open space. The Planning Commission also recommended the variance, but
41
questioned if more could be done to reduce the variance. If the Council so desires, the applicant
is willing to add rooftop open space and eliminate the tennis court to add green space. These
changes would reduce the variance from a 46% reduction to a 39% reduction. Staff and the
Planning Commission are also recommending approval of the preliminary PUD. The following
ordinance modifications are approved as part of the PUD:
a. Building heights may be increased to 25 stories.
b. Floor area ratio may be increased to 2.5
c. Parking requirement may be reduced by 15%
Attachments: Development plans
PUD Resolution
Variance Resolution
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
42
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O” OFFICE
LOCATED AT 5755 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) was received on October 10, 2000 from the Office Depot, Inc. (Park Land Development
and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners
of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the
vicinity and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at the
meeting of October 18, 2000, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD as published in the St.
Louis Park Sailor on October 4, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of
October 18, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD
on a vote of 5-1-1 with 5 members present voting in the affirmative, one in the negative and one
abstaining; 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. Office Depot Inc. (Park Land Development) has made application to the City Council for a
preliminary Planned Unit Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code within the “O” Office District located at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard for the legal description
as follows, to-wit:
Lot 3, Block 2, Park Plaza (Torrens)
43
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 00-52, PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety
and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause neither 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 00-52-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the
findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to consideration of the final PUD, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Submit full set of final PUD plans including any required revisions per the
preliminary PUD approval.
b. Site plan to be revised to show a sidewalk connection to West 16th Street.
2. The site shall be used, developed and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
subject to further plan revisions through the PUD process.
3. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Obtain an erosion control permit from the City.
b. Submit a copy of the Watershed District permit if required.
c. Submit a Letter of Credit covering 125% of the cost of: sidewalk installation,
repair and cleaning of public streets, and any utility work within public right of
way.
d. A Development Agreement is to be executed between the developer and the City
covering, at a minimum, plan changes which may be administratively approved,
sidewalk installation, and shall cite approved ordinance modifications. In
addition, the development agreement shall address any other issues that the City
Council deems appropriate and necessary.
e. Reimbursement of attorney’s fees for drafting and reviewing above documents.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the
applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Submit and have approved sidewalk construction details.
b. Submit and have approved lighting plans.
c. Submit and have approved building materials.
d. Sign the assent forms and all official exhibits, including the approved plans,
elevations, details, and materials samples.
44
e. Submit and have approved tot lot and plaza details.
5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall meet the following
conditions:
a. Install a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of residential entrance drive
between West 16th Street and the subject parcel per the approved site plan and
construction details, to be constructed and maintained at the developer’s expense.
b. Complete construction of swimming pool, terrace amenities and tot lot.
6. The following ordinance modifications are approved as part of the PUD:
a. Parking. The parking requirement may be reduced by 15% to allow 525 stalls
b. Building height. The building height may be increased to 25 stories.
c. Floor area ratio. The floor area ratio may be increased to 2.5.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-52-PUD/N/res/ord
City Clerk
45
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-6.2.E.1.e OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A REDUCTION USABLE
OPEN SPACE TO 57,270 S.F. INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 105,200 S.F. FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “O” OFFICE DISTRICT AT 5755 WAYZATA
BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Office Depot Inc. (Park Land Development) has applied for a variance from Section
14:5-6.2.E.1.e of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a reduction of usable
open space of 57,270 S.F. instead of the required 105,200 S.F. for property located in the
“O” Office District at the following location, to-wit:
Lot 3, Block 2, Park Plaza (Torrens)
2. On October 18, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a
variance with a vote of 5-2.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The residential density proposed by this project is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan requirements for multi-story buildings and high-density development in this
46
neighborhood and additional housing within this traffic assignment zone. It is also
consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals to provide housing within close proximity to
work place.
8. The property is located within the Travel Demand Management District. A remedy
proposed to mediate high travel demands within the district is to provide additional
housing within the district.
9. The property is currently occupied by a vacant non-conforming retail building that has
lost its non-conforming privileges and cannot be reoccupied by another retail use.
Economic feasibility for any redevelopment of the parcel will require development
densities that can absorb the costs of acquiring and demolishing the existing building.
10. The usable open space requirements for developing the subject parcel to maximum
residential densities allowed by the Office Use District exceed the ability to provide
usable open space on the ground level.
11. The project is providing additional community and recreational space within the building
as well as other active and passive outdoor-recreational space that does not meet the
minimum width requirements for usable open space. The total amount provided exceeds
14,000 square feet.
11. The contents of Planning Case File 00-51-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
12. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a reduction of usable open space of 57,270 S.F.
instead of the required 105,200 S.F. is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-51-VAR/N/res/ord
City Clerk
47
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of November 20, 2000
6b. Request by Marshall Kieffer for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of
Kieffer’s Addition, including variances to the subdivision ordinance for
reduced sidewalks and reduced easements and to waive the requirement for a
Development Agreement; and variances to the Zoning Ordinance for reduced
lot width and reduced building setbacks
Case Nos. 00-53-S and 00-54-VAR
2621 Virginia Avenue South, 8019 26th St. W, and 8025 26th St. W.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving variances to the
Zoning Ordinance for reduced lot widths and reduced
building setbacks.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving Preliminary and Final
Plat of Kieffer’s Addition, including variances to the
Subdivision Ordinance for reduced sidewalks and reduced
easements, and to waive the requirement for a Development
Agreement, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
Zoning: R-1, Low Density Single Family Residential District
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RL, Low Density Residential
Background:
2621 Virginia Avenue South was a tax-forfeit parcel, most of which the City returned to the state
in 1996. The City retained 15 feet of the property along its west side as additional right of way
for Virginia Avenue. The state sold its portion of the property to a private individual, and a
house was built on it in 1999. The lot is a long, rather narrow triangular shaped parcel which
abuts the Burlington Northern railroad to the south and single family lots to the north. The
owner of 2621 Virginia Avenue wishes to sell the back (east) portions of the lot to the two
adjacent lot owners to the north. Because the Virginia Avenue lot is unplatted property and three
lots are involved, a replatting is required. Several variances to the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance are being requested, based on the desire to essentially retain the existing
conditions on each lot.
On November 1, 2000 the Planning Commission held public hearings and considered the
variances and plat request. No one other than the applicant’s representative was present from the
public, and no one spoke at the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of all variances and the preliminary and final plat, subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff.
Issues:
48
Do the proposed variances to the Zoning Ordinance meet the necessary criteria?
Do the proposed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance meet the required findings?
Are the proposed preliminary and final plat acceptable?
Issues Analysis:
Do the requested variances from the Zoning Ordinance meet the necessary criteria?
The following variances are being requested from the Zoning Ordinance:
Lot width:75 foot minimum lot width in the R-1 residential district: Applicant proposes to
keep the existing lot widths of 74.86 and 73.79 respectively.
Building setback: Minimum 6 foot side yard setback and minimum 30 foot front yard
setback in the R-1 residential district. Applicant is proposing to maintain current building
setbacks on lot 3 of 5.2 and 23.7 respectively.
For the City Council to approve a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, it must be found that all
seven criteria are met. The seven criteria are analyzed below for each variance.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states that forcing these lots to conform with current standards would create undue
hardship upon the owners of these lots and would be in all practical sense impossible. The
proposed replat consists of previously platted legally nonconforming lots. These lots all have
existing structures on them and there is no land in the vicinity that would be available to increase
the lot widths. The strict application of lot width and set back requirements would result in
undue hardship to the owners. Regarding the setback issue on lot 3, lot 3 contains an existing
new construction home that was built in 1999. Said structure appears to encroach on the side
line 6 foot setback requirement by a few inches. This appears to have occurred because the
surveyor wanted to make sure there was no conflict or encroachment with the right of way to the
south of Lot 3. The southerly lot line for Lot 3 was brought up slightly for the properties to fit
together more harmoniously. Please note that a 5 foot easement can still run along the southerly
lot line without the house encroaching onto it. The house on Lot 3 also appears to encroach onto
the 30 foot setback requirement in the front of the lot. This may have been due to an error by the
builder in understanding where the location of the westerly lot line was. The underlying legal
description was a metes and bounds description and there were multiple legal descriptions
recorded on this property and this may have led to some confusion. At present, the house is an
existing structure and can not be moved back. The applicants request a variance for this set back
issue due to the hardship of the narrowness of the lot and already approved built condition.
49
As the applicant states, lots 1 and 2 are existing, previously platted, legally nonconforming lots,
which would be considered buildable lots under our Zoning Ordinance, and are a few inches
short of meeting the R-1 lot width requirement. A hardship exists in meeting the lot width
requirement, because there is no property available to acquire to increase the lot width, and the
lots have existed as platted, developed lots for many years. Regarding the building setbacks on
lot 3, staff also agrees that a hardship exists. When the house was built in 1999, it appeared to
the builder and the City that the setbacks were being met, based upon the best information
available from a surveyor at the time. The inaccuracy was due in part to a faulty legal
description used by the City in conveying this property back to the state, which did not properly
describe the fifteen feet of the property that the City retained as right of way. Upon greater
scrutiny due to the replatting, the south lot line has been shifted slightly to the north, closer to the
house, in order to better match up with the railroad’s survey, and the west lot line has been
moved several feet to the east. A hardship exists in that an honest mistake was made and would
be difficult to impossible to correct. Therefore, staff agrees that this criterion is met for all
variances.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures
in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that the conditions applying to these three lots are specific to these
properties. Two of these lots were originally platted back in 1953, which is quite a few years
ago. Due to zoning changes, they are now what are considered legal nonconforming lots with no
means to meet current zoning regulations. Due to the circumstances peculiar to these lots, a
variance is required.
Staff agrees that the circumstances are unique to these lots. Regarding the lot width variances,
lots 1 and 2 are already existing and developed platted lots whose owners want to add to by
purchasing small amounts of land from the adjacent property owner. The City’s Subdivision
Ordinance requires that the lots be included in the replat, even though they are not proposed to be
developed further. Regarding lot 3, the set of circumstances which have resulted in reduced
setbacks for this house are unique, i.e. mistakes by both the previous surveyor and the City,
which resulted in the existing setbacks. Staff therefore agrees that this criterion is met for all
variances.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that granting these variances are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the rights of the property owners. Both Matthew and Susan Steffens and Jerry
LaMaack have owned their property for over 10 years. This is their home. The property that
they are proposing to add onto their lots through replatting is land they have used as their own
for years. They are purchasing the additional unplatted land to ensure that they can maintain the
back yard that they are accustomed to.
50
Staff agrees that the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicants. To deny the variances would prevent a substantial right of the
property owners to transfer ownership of land that would otherwise meet the City’s typical
requirements (see below), or deny the existing, legal nonconforming use of lots 1 and 2. It
would be difficult to impossible to require strict conformance with the Code. Staff agrees that
this criterion is met for all the variances.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that the granting of the variances will harm no one and will in no way be a
detriment to the area. The legal description is changing, but in all practical sense nothing is
changing. The Steffens and Mr. LaMaack have used the land they are adding to their old lots as
part of their back yard for as long as they have owned the property. They are making an effort to
ensure their enjoyment of their back yards. Granting these variances will allow them to increase
their lots sizes and values. These lots will remain residential areas. Lot 3 of this proposed plat
contains a new construction home. It will be residential in nature. Prior to being developed it
was vacant land. This new home complies with the residential nature of the neighborhood and is
in no way a detriment to this area.
Staff agrees with the applicant. The reduced lot widths on Lots 1 and 2 have existed for many
years, and the lot widths are sufficiently wide to avoid these types of negative impacts.
Likewise, the building setbacks on Lot 3 are sufficient to avoid affecting the supply of light, air,
or fire, and though the house would be closer to Virginia Avenue, there would be no negative
impact on street congestion or public safety. Staff believes this criterion is m et for all of the
variances.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant states that granting the variance will not unreasonably impact the character and
development of the neighborhood. All three of these lots will remain single family residences.
Nothing is changing. Lots 1 and 2 will continue to be Matthew and Susan Steffens’ home and
Mr. LaMaack’s home.
The reduced lot widths and building setbacks are very similar or identical to other lots in the
area. The character of the area was established some time ago when most of the lots were
platted. The lot widths and building side yard setback are very close to meeting the requirements
of the zoning district and do not alter the existing conditions. The reduced front setback of the
house on lot 3 likewise would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The distance of
the house from Virginia Avenue and from the sidewalk along Virginia is greater than that of the
house directly north, so it is not out of place. The house is at a higher elevation th an the right of
51
way and screened by trees, so there is adequate separation from the street. Staff believes this
criterion is met for all the variances.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that the granting of the proposed variances will not be contrary to the intent
of this ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The applicant believes the intent of the plan is to
ensure that the lots in this area are single family residences with sufficient space for property
owners to enjoy their lots and that the subdivision will be visually pleasing. It should also be
noted that the current lots are very close to complying with the required lot widths and setback
requirements. All three of the lots have existing structures on them and none of them have the
ability to add land to their lots nor do they want to move their homes. The home on Lot 3 of the
proposed plat may have encroached onto the 30 foot setback area when it was constructed, but
the applicant truly believes this was unintentional. The underlying legal for this parcel had a
metes and bounds description that had two resolutions passed on it regarding the legal
description, only one of which was recorded. The applicant notes that, unless the home is
moved, which would present an undue hardship to the current owners of this home, the
encroachment will exist regardless of whether the replatting is authorized. Thus, in order to
allow the property owners of these lots to enjoy their homes and correct the legal ownership of
land that they are currently using, a variance is necessary.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the proposed variances are not contrary to the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. Regarding reduced lot width on lots 1 and 2, the Zoning Ordinance contains
provisions to ensure that the many older single family lots in the City which do not quite meet
dimensional requirements continue to be buildable, and granting the variance for lot width would
be consistent with these provisions. The lots are both within 1.5 feet of meeting the requirement.
Regarding lot 3, it appears that the property owner and builder of the home fully intended and
attempted to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, but more extensive survey work has revealed
some past inaccuracies. Therefore, staff believes this criterion is met for all the variances.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that the granting of these variances will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship. Both the Steffens
and Mr. LaMaack have owned their property for over 10 years. During that time, they have used
these additional pieces of land that they have recently purchased as part of their property, more
specifically as part of their back yard. They purchased this land to ensure that nothing would
change regarding the current use of their property. They wanted to make sure that no one would
build anything in what they considered or thought to be their back yard. The City of St. Louis
Park is requiring a replatting of this property to approve the transfer of this property. This
replatting process has forced these properties to be reevaluated under current zoning and
subdivision laws which they were not originally required to meet. These previously platted lots
with existing homes on them do not have the ability to change to meet these more modern
ordinance. The applicant further notes that variance are available for a reason. They are
52
available to allow zoning and subdivision processes to continue when these regulations cause an
undue hardship to property owners. The applicant believes that this is definitely the case here.
Staff agrees that the granting of the variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicants, but that a hardship has been demonstrated for each variance requested. As the
applicant states, Lots 1 and 2 met zoning requirements at the time that they were platted, and it
would be impossible to meet the width requirement. The building setbacks on Lot 3 are
substandard due to past inaccuracies in surveying, which are now being corrected. Staff believes
it would be a hardship to require the building setbacks to conform to ordinance standards.
Therefore staff believes this criterion is met for all the variances.
Based upon the analysis above, staff believes all criteria are met for all variances.
Do the proposed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance meet the required findings?
The following variances from the Subdivision Ordinance are being requested:
Sidewalks: The Subdivision Ordinance requires minimum five foot wide concrete sidewalks
to be installed along all property lines abutting a public street, when a property is platted or
replatted. The applicant is requesting not to install any sidewalk along 26th Street in front of
Lots 1 and 2, and to make no additional improvements to the 3-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Virginia Avenue in front of Lot 3.
Easements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires ten foot perimeter easements for utility and
drainage purposes to be dedicated along all lot lines as part of a plat. (The ten feet can be
met through two contiguous five foot easements on adjacent lots.) The applicant is
requesting to dedicate easements as shown on the preliminary plat instead, i.e. five foot
drainage (no utility) easements along the front lot lines of Lots 1 and 2; five foot only
drainage and utility easements along the rear line of lots 1 and 2; drainage only easement
along the west side of lot 1 and both sides of lot 2; five foot drainage only easement along the
north side lot line of lot 3; and five foot only drainage and utility easement along the south
side lot line of lot 3.
Development Agreement: The Subdivision Ordinance requires a Development Agreement
between the developer and the City for all plats. A variance is also required to waive the
requirement for a Development Agreement.
Following are the applicant’s statement and staff’s analysis of whether the four necessary
findings are met for each of the variances.
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict application of the provisions of this Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
Sidewalks: While the Subdivision Ordinance calls for sidewalks in all areas, the City’s recently
adopted Trail and Sidewalk Plan does not call for sidewalks along this portion of 26th Street or
for improvements along Virginia Avenue. If lots 1 and 2 were required to install sidewalks, it
would be an unconnected, isolated segment that would not be integrated into the sidewalk system
53
for several years to come if at all. Due to the fact that lots 1 and 2 are existing, fully developed
lots on a quiet residential street with no other sidewalks, staff believes it would be an
unnecessary physical hardship to install a sidewalk in this area. The three foot wide sidewalk
along Virginia Avenue was installed last year, because it was the maximum width that could be
installed without significant regrading, and because the narrowness of the road under the railroad
bridge precludes a wider sidewalk along Virginia Avenue generally. As noted by Commissioner
Gothberg at the Planning Commission meeting, Virginia Avenue has been noted by the Trail and
Sidewalk Commission as a possible future bike and pedestrian corridor when the railroad bridge
is replaced.
Easements: Staff agrees there is a hardship in installing the full easements given that these are
all fully developed lots with houses within six feet of lot lines, and given that the utilities are
already installed. The applicant met with City staff, including Public Works, prior to making an
application to determine which easements were strictly necessary in this instance. City staff
agreed that the easements shown on the proposed plat would be sufficient in this instance for
drainage and utility purposes. In addition, the plat was routed to utility companies, who all
responded that the plat and proposed easements were adequate for their purposes. A ten foot
utility easement is proposed to be retained across the rear yards of lots 1 and 2 which contains an
overhead utility line.
Development Agreement: The purpose of the development agreement is to ensure that any public
improvements associated with a project are completed in a timely manner and built to City
requirements. In this instance, the requirement for a Development Agreement is not appropriate,
because there are no public improvements associated with the platting and the lots are fully
developed. Therefore staff believes this criterion is met for all variances.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated.
Sidewalks: 26th Street is a quiet residential street, and installing a short, disconnected sidewalk
segment would not create any additional opportunities for pedestrians. As Virginia Avenue in
front of Lot 3 already contains a walkable sidewalk, staff believes that allowing the existing
sidewalk to remain as is will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare or injurious to
other nearby properties.
Easements: Based upon the discussion noted above and acceptance by utility companies of the
proposed easements, staff believes the variance will meet this criterion.
Development Agreement: Waiving the requirement for a development agreement would have no
negative impact on surrounding properties because the agreement would serve no purpose in this
case. Therefore, staff believes this criterion is met for all variances.
3. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship
such as topography, etc.
54
Sidewalks: As the applicant stated in their application, requiring the owners of Lots 1 and 2 to
install a disconnected sidewalk segment and to reduce their front yard space to do so would
create inequities, given that there are no other sidewalks along 26th street nor any planned in the
near future. As stated above, the existing sidewalk along Virginia Avenue is the maximum
width that can be accommodated without significantly altering the grades on the adjacent lot.
Easements: The existing built condition of the properties make it a hardship to acquire new
easements across previously platted and developed lots, especially given that the replatting
involves three different property owners and is to accomplish a relatively minor transfer of
property. Staff agrees that it would be a hardship to require the full easements in this case,
especially as they are not necessary.
Development Agreement: This criterion is not applicable to the waiving of a Development
Agreement. Therefore, staff believes this criterion has been met for all variances.
4. That the variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Sidewalks: As noted above, the variance is consistent with the City’s recently adopted Trail and
Sidewalk Plan for the next several years. The existing sidewalks are consistent with the City’s
trail and sidewalk plan, which shows an existing sidewalk along Virginia Avenue with no plans
for improvement in this area, and no plans for sidewalks along 26th Street. While the
Comprehensive Plan does call for sidewalks to be installed wherever possible to promote
walkability, the existing sidewalks appear adequate for walkability. While more sidewalk
improvements in this area may be warranted in the future, the City has not identified the need for
them at this time nor are they practical, given the existing conditions.
Easements: Staff believes the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as we believe
the proposed easements will allow for adequate utility service and adequate provisions for
drainage.
Development Agreement: The waiving of the Development Agreement in this instance would
not be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, because there are no public
improvements associated with the platting and no need for a Development Agreement.
Therefore, staff believes this criterion has been met for all variances.
Therefore, staff believes all four criteria have been met for all the variances.
Are the proposed preliminary and final plat and accompanying plans acceptable?
As shown on the plat documents, the replatting proposes to plat the front (west) portion of the
Virginia Avenue lot as lot 3, and to split off the back (east) portion into two parcels and combine
them with lots 1 and 2 respectively, which are existing single family lots.
Preliminary plat: As mentioned above, the proposed plat corrects a previous survey of the 2621
Virginia Avenue property to show 15 feet of additional right of way along Virginia Avenue,
which the City retained when it turned back the tax forfeit property to the state. Appropriate City
55
departments, the City attorney, and utility companies have reviewed the proposed plat and have
raised no objections. The proposed plat requires variances to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance, which are analyzed above. Provided all variances are approved as staff
and the Planning Commission are recommending, the preliminary plat meets the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
Final Plat document: The proposed final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat drawing and,
provided variances are approved as staff and the Planning Commission are recommending, meets
the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Grading and utility plan: The grading and utility plan shows only existing grading and utilities,
as utilities are already in place and no new grading is being proposed. Staff finds the plans
acceptable.
Park and trail dedication: As the proposed replatting does not involve creation of additional lots,
park and trail dedication fees do not apply.
Recommendation:
Based upon the findings above that all seven criteria are met for the granting of the variances,
staff and the Planning Commission are recommending adoption of a resolution approving the
variances from the Zoning Ordinance. Staff and the Planning Commission are also
recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Kieffer’s Addition including
variances to the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to the conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
Proposed resolutions
Proposed preliminary and final plat and grading plan
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
56
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 00-146
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:5-4.2 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT REDUCED LOT WIDTHS
OF 73.8 and 74.9 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET AND REDUCED
BUILDING SETBACKS OF 5.2 FEET SIDE YARD AND 23.7 FRONT YARD INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 6 FEET AND 30 FEET RESPECTIVELY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1 LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
AT 8019 26TH STREET WEST AND 8025 26TH STREET WEST
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Marshall Kieffer has applied for variances from Section 14:5-4.2 of the Ordinance Code
relating to zoning to permit reduced lot widths of 73.8 and 74.9 feet instead of the
required 75 feet and reduced building setbacks of 5.2 feet side yard and 23.7 feet front
yard instead of the required 6 feet and 30 feet respectively for property located in the R -1
Low Density Single Family Residential District at the following location, to-wit:
Lot 15 & Lot 16, Block 3, Southwestwood Hills Second Addition together
with part of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter,
Section 7, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County Minnesota lying
northerly of B.N.S.F. Railroad and easterly of Virginia Avenue
2. On November 1, 2000 The Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of
variances with a 5-0 vote.
4. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variances upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
57
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 00-54-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variances to permit reduced lot widths of 73.8 and 74.9 feet instead of the
required 75 feet and reduced building setbacks of 5.2 feet side yard and 23.7 feet front yard
instead of the required 6 feet and 30 feet respectively is granted based upon the finding(s) set
forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-54-VAR/N/res/ord
City Clerk
58
RESOLUTION NO. 00-147
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
KIEFFER’S ADDITION
WITH VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
FOR REDUCED SIDEWALKS, REDUCED PERIMETER LOT EASEMENTS
AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Marshall Kieffer, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as
Kieffer’s Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of
said subdivision, with variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks, reduced
perimeter lot easements and to waive the requirement for a development agreement, in the
manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat have been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Lot 15 & Lot 16, Block 3, South Westwood Hills Second Addition together with
part of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, Section 7,
Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County Minnesota lying northerly of
B.N.S.F. Railroad and easterly of Virginia Avenue
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Kieffer’s Addition, with
variances to the Subdivision Ordinance, is hereby approved and accepted by the City as
being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City
of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following
conditions:
A. Variances are approved from the Subdivision Ordinance for no sidewalks along 26th Street
adjacent to lots 1 and 2 and to no improvements to the sidewalk on Virginia Avenue adjacent
to lot 3, drainage and utility easements as shown on the final plat, and to waive the
requirement for a Development Agreement, in accordance with the following findings:
a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict applicant of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
59
b) That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health,
safet y and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is
situated.
c) That the variances are to correct inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship;
d) That the variances are in harmony with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall 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.
C. 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.
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney
and Certification by the City Clerk as provided for in Sections 14-303(3)(d) and (e) of the
St. Louis Park Ordinance Code.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all
contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and Section 14-303(3)(e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as
required under Section 14-303(3)(e), shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance
therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and
shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-53-S/N/res/ord
City Clerk
60
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6c
Meeting of November 20, 2000
6c. Park Commons TIF District
This report considers a resolution calling for a public hearing on the establishment of the
Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The new district will encompass the Park Commons East Redevelopment Area.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the
establishment of the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Adoption of the
Proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor.
Background:
On August 16, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution calling for a public hearing to
consider the adoption of a resolution establishing the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District. The Planning Commission Reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on October 6,
1999 and found that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
On October 18, 1999 the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Park Commons TIF
District. At this meeting staff recommended that the EDA/Council not take action on the formal
adoption of the Tax Increment Financing plan until such time when a final development
agreement with Avalon Bay was approved. A final development agreement was never approved
since Avalon Bay left the project and no action was taken on creating the Park Commons TIF
District.
On July 5, 2000 the EDA/Council entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA)
with TOLD Development Company. TOLD has made substantial progress on the Park Commons
East project and it is anticipated that a final Development Agreement between TOLD, the EDA,
and the City will be approved at the January 16, 2001 EDA/Council meeting. It is now time to
revisit the creation of the Park Commons TIF District.
Park Commons TIF District:
It has been over a year since the City Council held the public hearing on the creation of the Park
Commons TIF District. Since this much time has passed and the project has been updated, staff
has been advised to go through the process of creating the Park Commons TIF District again.
Calling for the public hearing will allow the city and staff to take the appropriate steps to
establish the Park Commons TIF district. The TIF hearing is scheduled to be held on January 2,
2001 with formal adoption scheduled to coincide with the approval of the Final Development
Agreement with TOLD (scheduled for January 16, 2001).
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
61
RESOLUTION NO. 00-048
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY
ON THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PARK COMMONS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) for the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on Monday, January 2, 2001, at
approximately 7:30 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Modification
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed establishment of Park
Commons Tax Increment Financing District, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed
adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan t herefor, all pursuant to and accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the
development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plan and Program. City staff is authorized
and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan and Program") and to
forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and
Independent School District No. 283. The City Manager is authorized and directed to cause
notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at
least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to
January 2, 2001, and to place a copy of the Plan and Program on file in the City Manager’s office
at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
62
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6d
Meeting of November 20, 2000
6d. MSP Real Estate Subordination and Consent
This report considers subordinating the EDA’s first mortgage on the Mill
City property and city property when sold. It also considers executing a
consent letter required by MSP Real Estate’s lender.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize execution of the consent letter and
the Real Estate Mortgage Subordination Agreement.
Background:
The City and the EDA approved a redevelopment agreement with MSP Real Estate at the April
3, 2000 EDA/Council meeting outlining the terms related to the development of the Mill City
site at Highway 7 and Louisiana. The City and EDA approved amendments to this agreement on
May 1, 2000 and August 7, 2000.
Subordination and Consent:
As part of MSP’s loan closing the lender is requesting the EDA/Council to subordinate its
mortgage and consent to the assignment of the TIF Note. Currently, the EDA/Council are in first
position on the Mill City site and are in the process of getting ready to close on the sale of the
City parcel to MSP. The Mortgage Subordination will put the EDA/Council in second position
behind Banker’s Bank who is the MSP’s lender. We have a mortgage on the property to protect
the EDA/Council in the event the cleanup did not occur and the project did not get built. The
EDA/Council did agree in the Development Agreement to subordinate to MSP’s lender if
necessary.
The execution of the Consent Letter means that the EDA/Council will consent to the fact that
MSP will assign the TIF Note to Banker’s Bank. The consent does not relieve MSP of any of its
obligations under the Redevelopment Agreement. If there is a default by MSP and the Bank
takes over performing under the agreement, the EDA/Council can make TIF payments to the
Bank based on language in the Consent Letter.
The EDA attorney has reviewed both the Real Estate Mortgage Subordination Agreement and
the Consent Letter that the lender is requesting the EDA/Council to approve. He has stated that
these are routine requests and is recommending approval.
Attachments: Consent Letter
Real Estate Mortgage Subordination Agreement
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
63
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6e
Meeting of November 20, 2000
6e. Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement between the
EDA, the City, and TOLD Development Company.
. This report considers approving the Third Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between Meridian
Properties (TOLD Development Company), the City and the EDA relating to
the Park Commons East redevelopment project.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the Third Amendment to the Amended
and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement between
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development LLC, the
City, and the EDA relating to the Park Commons East
redevelopment project.
Background:
On July 5, 2000, the EDA/Council approved the Second Amendment to the Amended and
Restated Preliminary Development Agreement between Meridian Properties (i.e. TOLD
Development Company) and the EDA/City which named TOLD as the exclusive developer of
the Park Commons East project. This agreement set certain dates by which TOLD was supposed
to complete various tasks. TOLD has met the deadlines to date but it is clear that some of the
dates will have to be modified based on the current status of the project.
Development Agreement Changes:
The Third Amendment to the PDA proposes to modify the schedule set out in the Second
Amendment to the PDA. Based on TOLD’s performance to date, staff has agreed to bring the
following modifications to the EDA/Council.
TOLD is required to submit an infrastructure plan, preliminary plat documents, and its
application for planning approvals by December 1, 2000. It is proposed that this date be changed
to January 16, 2001. This will give TOLD time to deal with infrastructure and surveying issues
which are necessary to meet this submittal.
TOLD and the EDA/Council are required to have approved the final Redevelopment Contract by
December 18, 2000. It is proposed that this date be changed to January 16, 2001.
TOLD is required to complete a number of items by May 1, 2001 including construction
documents, final planning approvals, and utility/building permit applications for the first phase
of the project. It is proposed that the date for these items be changed to May 14, 2001 to coincide
with the actual date final planning approvals could be expected.
64
A couple of other dates have been revised to reflect the above changes including changing the
date when the additional $100,000 becomes non-refundable to January 16, 2001 which coincides
with the new Redevelopment Contract approval deadline. The other change is that the term of the
Agreement has been extended to January 31, 2001.
Next Steps:
Staff will continue to negotiate the final Redevelopment Contract with TOLD. It is anticipated
that the final Redevelopment Contract will be brought before the EDA/Council on January 16,
2001.
Attachments: Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development
Agreement
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
65
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 20th day of November, 2000, by and
between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body
politic and corporate, and the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(collectively referred to as the "Authority") with their principal office at 5005 Minnetonka
Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 and MERIDIAN PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer") with its
principal office at 6385 Old Shady Oak Road, Suite 120, Eden Prairie, MN 55344.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to promote redevelopment of certain property known
as Phase I of the Park Commons Redevelopment Area (referred to as “Park Commons East”;
formerly known as the “Phase I Area”) in the city of St. Louis Park (“City”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority and AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (“AvalonBay”) entered
into an Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement dated August 30, 1999, as
amended by a First Amendment thereto dated December 6, 1999 (the “Agreement”) in
connection with redevelopment of Park Commons East; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the initial Agreement, the Authority has acquired most of the
parcels of Park Commons East, is currently negotiating to acquire the remaining parcels, has
prepared a preliminary analysis of public financing resources available to assist the Developer,
and has commenced demolition of existing buildings on a portion of Park Commons East; and
WHEREAS, with the consent of the Authority and the City, AvalonBay has assigned all
its rights and obligations under the Agreement to the Developer pursuant to that certain
Assignment of Preliminary Development Agreement dated July 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Second Amendment to Amended and Restated
Preliminary Development Agreement dated July 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement further, as described in this
document.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations of the parties
hereto, the Authority and the Developer hereby agree as follows:
1. The parties agree and understand that the master site plan attached as Exhibit B to
this document is substituted as the master site plan referenced in Section 2(a) of the Agreement.
2. Section 3 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
Section 3. Developer Agreements and Undertakings.
66
(a) The Developer acknowledges and accepts the master site plan as described in Section 2(a)
hereof, subject to the terms of Section (b)(1) hereof. The Developer expressly agrees and
understands that Developer will be responsible for development of the owner-occupied
housing component of the master site plan, but expects to select a third party, approved by
the Authority, to carry out that component. The Authority and Developer agree to negotiate,
as part of the Contract, the terms for selection of the owner-occupied housing developer and
the terms of sale of the relevant portion of Park Commons East property to that developer.
(b) The Developer will use its best efforts to complete the following tasks by the following
dates:
1) by August 15, 2000, submit a preliminary feasibility analysis of the development including,
at a minimum analysis of:
functionality
preliminary cost estimates
preliminary financing approach and gap analysis (showing the amount and form of public
subsidy)
preliminary phasing plan and related components
retail/office/housing mix
suggested modifications of the master site plan, as necessary to make the plan feasible and
identification of other issues.
2) by September 1, 2000, request City to initiate any necessary comprehensive plan changes and
rezonings, conditioned on the parties’ mutual agreement to proceed.
3) by October 2, 2000, submit to the Authority a final feasibility analysis that refines the
analysis submitted under clause (1); and the parties commence negotiation of the Contract.
4) by December 1, 2000, submit to the Authority a detailed schematic design for Park
Commons East, including site plan, buildings, and preliminary phasing plan.
5) by December 18, 2000, the parties must have approved the following:
status of retail leasing and the office component, indicating feasibility of the development.
final phasing plan
financing approach
6) by January 16, 2001, submit to the Authority preliminary plat documents and applications for
planning approvals, including preliminary PUD; and the parties must have approved the final
comprehensive Contract.
7) by February 15, 2001, Developer has completed design development and pricing exercise for
the Phases 1 and 2 (as identified on Exhibit B) of the Park Commons East development,
67
8) by April 2, 2001, Developer has initiated final planning approvals (including final PUD) for
Phase 1, the town green, and all streets and utilities for the Park Commons East development.
9) by May 14, 2001, Developer has completed construction documents and pricing exercise for
Phases 1 and 2 of the development; final planning approvals have been obtained for Phase 1,
the town green and all streets and utilities for the Park Commons East development; and
Developer has submitted utility and building permit applications for Phase 1.
10) by June 1, 2001, construction of utilities and streets for the first phase commences.
11) by August 1, 2001, below ground excavation for construction of buildings in the first phase
commences.
3. In Section 4(c) of the Agreement, the date “December 18, 2000” is changed to
“January 16, 2001” (which extends the date by which an additional $100,000 in cash or letter of
credit becomes non-refundable, subject to the terms described in Section 4).
4. In Section 8 of the Agreement, the date “December 31, 2000” is changed to
“January 31, 2001 (which extends the term of the Agreement).
5. The Agreement remains in full force and effect and is not modified except as
expressly provided herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in its name and behalf and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in its name and behalf on or as of the date first above written.
MERIDIAN PROPERTIES ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By______________________________ By_____________________________
Its President
By______________________________
Its Executive Director
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By______________________________
Its Mayor
By______________________________
Its City Manager
68
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 5, 2016
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to approve resolution appointing Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. as the City
Auditor and approve entering into an agreement for audit services.
2. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment changing the
designation on property located at 3345 Dakota Avenue South and adjacent railroad from
R2 to C1, adopt Ordinance, approve summary Ordinance and authorize publication.
3. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment, adopt ordinance,
approve summary and authorize its publication.
4. Motion to approve Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13, Part 3
of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code Concerning the Sale, Consumption and
Display of Alcoholic Beverages; and motion to approve the ordinance summary
and authorize publication.
5. Approve first reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00 and set second
reading for December 4, 2000.
6. Motion to approve the attached resolution accepting the grant of $100,000
designed for assistance with the development of soccer fields in the Oak Park
Village area.
7. Motion to accept reports for filing
a. Planning Commission Minutes of October 18, 2000
b. Pay Equity Report
c. Charter Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000
d. Vendor Claims
e. Financial Report
f. Planning Commission Minutes of November 1, 2000
69
CONSENT ITEM # 1
City of St. Louis Park
November 20, 2000
1. Motion to approve resolution appointing Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. as the
City Auditor and approve entering into an agreement for audit services.
Background:
On September 26, 2000 a Request for Proposal for Audit services was sent out to eleven (11)
Certified Public Accounting firms. Of the eleven, eight were submitted to the City for review.
The Audit Committee reviewed the eight proposals and two firms were selected for interview.
At the November 13, 2000 City Council Study Session, this information was reviewed with the
City Council.
After review and evaluating all proposals and discussing this with Council, staff recommends
appointing Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. as the City Auditor for a contract period of three years.
Attachments: Resolution authorizing an agreement for audit services
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
70
RESOLUTION NO. 00-142
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY AUDITOR AND AUTHORIZING AN
AGREEMENT BETWEENTHE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND KERN, DEWENTER,
VIERE., LTD FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2000-2003
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 6.14 provides that the City
of St. Louis Council may provide for an audit of the City finances by a certified public
accountant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council solicited qualifications from certified public accountant firms in
2000for such audit service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the evaluation s for the qualification supplemental
materials, reference and interviews; and
WHEREAS, based upon the review of those evaluations, the City Council appointed Kern,
DeWenter, Viere, Ltd., their independent auditor for a period of three years.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized on behalf of the City Council to execute
an agreement for audit services for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 with Kern,
DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. in conformance with the general terms and conditions considered by
Council for professional services contracts.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
71
CONSENT ITEM # 2
City of St. Louis Park
November 20, 2000
2. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map amendment changing
the designation on property located at 3345 Dakota Avenue South and
adjacent railroad from R2 to C1, adopt Ordinance, approve summary
Ordinance and authorize publication.
Background:
On November 6, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of the Ordinance changing the
zoning on the subject properties from R2 – Single Family Residential to C1- Neighborhood
Commercial. This is consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. This change
will rectify an inconsistency between the Zoning Map and the Comprehensive Plan that has
existed since 1992. The proposed change will also bring the existing land use on the 3345
Dakota Avenue parcel into a conforming status.
Attachments: Existing Comprehensive Plan
Current and Proposed Zoning Designation
Proposed Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
72
Comp P lan
Resi den ti al L o w D en sity
Resi den ti al M e dium D ensi ty
Resi den ti al H igh De nsit y
Co mm ercial
Co mm ercial M ixed Us e
O ffice
In d ust rial
Civic
Civic -M ix ed U se
Par k & O pen S pace
Right of W ay
Railroa d
Comprehe nsive Plan
73
Current zoning
Proposed Zoning
#
La k e S tre e t
#
D a ko ta A ve n u e
SubjectR2
C2 R4
R2RC
R2
C2 R4
R2RC
#
L a k e S t r e e t
#
D a k o t a A v e n u e
#
C 1
74
ORDINANCE NO. 2182-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3345 DAKOTA AVENUE SOUTH
PLUS A PORTION OF THE ADJOINING RAILROAD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore
amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying
the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land
use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Commencing at southwest corner of Lot 7; thence northeasterly along a line
running from said southwest corner to northeast corner of Lot 9 to a point distant 8
feet south of and measured at right angles from north line of Lot 8; thence west
parallel with said north line to west line of Lot 8; thence south to beginning; Lots 7
and 8, Block 5, Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park
and
All that portion of the following parcel that lies southwesterly of a line 8 feet south
and parallel to the north lines of Lots 8 and 5, Block 5 Maple Park Addition:
Beginning at northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5, Maple Park Addition to St.
Louis Park north; thence south to southeast corner of Lot 3 said Block 5;
thence west 3.11 feet; thence southwesterly to a point on a west line of Lot 8,
Block 5, St. Louis Park north and passing thru the point of intersection of
center line of vacated alley with the westerly extension of south line of Lot 6,
Block 5 Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park north; thence north to
southwest corner of Lot 7, Block 5 Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park
north; thence northeasterly to northeast corner of Lot 9 last said Block 5;
thence east to southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 5; thence northeasterly to a
point in north line thereof distant 35 feet east of northwest corner thereof;
thence west 30 feet; thence northeasterly to a point on north line of Lot 1,
distant 45 feet west of northeast corner thereof; thence east to beginning
including adjacent ½ of vacated alley.
from R-2 Single Family Residence to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
75
Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-47-Z/N/res/ord
76
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2182-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3345 DAKOTA AVENUE SOUTH
PLUS A PORTION OF THE ADJOINING RAILROAD
This ordinance states that the zoning classification for the property located at 3345 Dakota
Avenue South plus a portion of the adjoining railroad shall be changed from R-2 Single Family
Residence to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council November 20, 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: November 29, 2000
77
CONSENT ITEM # 3
City of St. Louis Park
November 20, 2000
3. Approve second reading of Zoning Ordinance Map
amendment, adopt ordinance, approve summary and
authorize its publication.
Background:
On November 6, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of the subject ordinance to
rezone the property at 2501 Edgewood Avenue South and 6301 Cedar Lake Road in order the
meet State Statute requirements to bring “official controls” into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed change to City owned property east of the railroad is to rezone the parcel as
industrial consistent with the current land use. On November 6, 2000, the City Council also
approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reguide the undevelopable northeast portion of
that property to Park. The IG – General Industrial zoning being proposed is not inconsistent with
this guiding since parks are permitted uses in every zoning district.
The land use designation on the CP Rail property is “Railroad”. A rezoning of this property
from R3 – Two Family Residential to IG – General Industrial is consistent with that designation.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance amendment after holding a
public hearing on October 4, 2000.
Attachments: Approved Comprehensive Plan
Current and Proposed Zoning
Proposed Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
78
App rovedC o m p Plan
Residential Low Den sity
Residential M edium D ensity
Residential H igh Density
Com m erc ial
Com m erc ial M ixed Use
Of fice
Indu stria l
Civic
Civic-M ixed Use
Pa rk & O pen Space
Right of W ay
Railroad
Ap proved
Compr ehensive Plan
79
Current Zoning
Proposed Zoning
R3
IP IP
R2
Subject
Area
IG
IPIP
R2
R3
R3
80
ORDINANCE NO. 2183-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
6301 CEDAR LAKE ROAD AND
2501 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore
amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying
the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land
use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Parcel at 6301 Cedar Lake Road:
Tract D Registered Land Survey No. 916 except that part of the westerly 30 feet thereof lying
south of the easterly extension of the north line of Tract B RLS 916 and lying north of the
easterly extension of the north line of the south 231 feet of said Tract B also except that part of
said Tract D lying westerly of the following described line beginning at the southwest corner of
said Tract D; thence northerly 179.87 feet along the westerly line of Tract D; thence northerly
83.26 feet deflected to the right 5 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds; thence northerly 106.65 feet
deflected to the right 2 degrees 41 minutes 29 seconds; thence northwesterly deflected to the left
38 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds; thence to the west line of Tract D and there ending.
Parcel at 2501 Edgewood Avenue:
That part of Tract E lying south of north 35 feet thereof also that part of north 35 feet of said
Tract E lying east of west 90 feet thereof; Registered Land Survey No. 0916.
from R-3 Two Family Residence to IG General Industrial
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-48-Z/N/res/ord
81
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2183-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
6301 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
AND
2501 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
This ordinance states that the zoning classification for the properties located at 6301 Cedar Lake
Road and 2501 Edgewood Avenue South shall be changed from R-3 Two Family Residence to
IG General Industrial.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council November 20, 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: November 29, 2000
82
CONSENT ITEM # 4
City of St. Louis Park
November 20, 2000
4. Motion to approve Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13, Part 3 of the St.
Louis Park Municipal Code Concerning the Sale, Consumption and Display of Alcoholic
Beverages; and motion to approve the ordinance summary and authorize publication.
Background
As part of the recodification process, the city’s liquor licensing ordinance has undergone a
comprehensive review. At the meeting of November 6, 2000 Council approved first reading and
the ordinance and its summary are now being presented for second reading .
Proposed Ordinance
The current municipal code has become increasingly inadequate in addressing the city’s needs as
they relate to administration and enforcement of liquor licensing. The ordinance is divided into
two separate sections for intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor, and some requirements
pertinent to liquor licensing are contained in entirely different sections of the municipal code.
The new ordinance combines all references to liquor licensing into one stand alone ordinance
section and has been expanded to clarify procedures, restrictions and requirements.
Because enforcement of statutory regulations is predominantly the responsibility of the city,
several statute sections have been repeated where staff and the attorney felt the addition would
be of significant value to the licensee or to the city’s enforcement efforts. Some provisions have
been modified and expanded to ensure that the city’s position on sensitive issues is legally
defensible.
Significant Changes
Application, renewal and approval processes for new licenses and for license transfers have
been better defined and now allow for an investigation fee to recoup city costs for this labor
intensive effort.
License year changed to run from March 1st through the last day of February.
Provisions related to corporate structure and management are included which will assist the
city in enforcing statutory restrictions on business interests.
Requirements for sale of food on premises have been included with provisions for
certification at time of renewal
Restrictions on nudity in the establishments now apply to patrons as well as staff
Provisions regarding compliance checks and penalties have been improved
Public hearing notice for the meeting where the license is considered has been reduced;
planning commission hearing requirements on the use remain in place. Processes for
consideration of zoning and license applications typically run concurrently.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Summary
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
83
ORDINANCE NO. 2184-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13,
PART 3 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CONCERNING THE SALE, CONSUMPTION AND
DISPLAY OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 13, Part 3 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
PART 3 - Sale, Consumption and Display of Alcoholic Beverages
State Law Adopted/Definitions
Section 13-301. Provisions of State Law Adopted. Except to the extent the provisions of this
Part are more restrictive, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 340A, as amended,
regarding the terms, licensing, consumption, sales, hours of sale, and all other matters pertaining
to the retail sale, distribution, and consumption of intoxicating liquor and 3.2 percent malt liquor
are adopted and made a part of this Chapter as if set out in full.
Section 13-302. Definitions. For the purposes of this Part, and in addition to those
definitions contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 340A, as amended, the terms used in this
Subsection are defined as follows:
1) Bona Fide Club: The term "bona fide club" means an organization for social or business
purposes or for intellectual improvement, or for the promotion of sports, where the
serving of alcohol is incidental and not the major purpose of the club.
2) Display: The term "Display" means the keeping, storing, or permitting to be kept or
stored of an alcoholic beverage which has been poured, dispensed or has had its package
seal broken on, in, or at any table, booth, bar or other area of a licensed premises
accessible to the general public, except when the alcoholic beverage is stored in a normal
storage area during non-sale hours.
3) Drugstore: The term "drugstore" means any place where drugs are kept, compounded
and sold and which shall at all times be in charge of a registered pharmacist or assistant
pharmacist during the temporary absence of the registered pharmacist.
4) Interest: The term "interest" as used in this Part includes any pecuniary interest in the
ownership, operation, management or profits of a liquor establishment, but does not
include: bona fide loans; bona fide fixed sum rental agreements; bona fide open accounts
or other obligations held with or without security arising out of the ordinary and regular
course of business or selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such
establishment; or any interest of 5 percent or less in any corporation holding a City liquor
84
license. A person who receives monies, from time to time, directly or indirectly from a
licensee in the absence of a bona fide consideration therefor and excluding bona fide gifts
or donations, shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retail license. In
determining "bona fide," the reasonable value of the goods or things received as
consideration for the payment of the licensee and all other facts reasonably tending to
prove or disprove the existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade any
prohibitions under this Chapter shall be considered.
5) Licensed Premises: The term "Licensed Premises" is the premises described in the
approved license application. In the case of a restaurant, club, or exclusive liquor store
licensed for on-sales of alcoholic beverages and located on a golf course, "licensed
premises" means the entire golf course except for areas where motor vehicles are
regularly parked or operated.
6) Properly Designated Officer: The term "Properly Designated Officer" means and
includes (i) the St. Louis Park City Fire Inspector; (ii) the St. Louis Park City Building
Official; and (iii) the Health Inspectors employed by Hennepin County or the State of
Minnesota acting in the course of the scope of their employment.
7) Sale and sell: The terms "sale" and "sell" mean and include all barters and all manners or
means of furnishing alcoholic beverages.
8) Store Manager: The term "Store Manager" as used in this Chapter means a person
designated by the license holder who works full-time at the licensed premises and is in
charge of day-to-day liquor sales.
9) Restaurant: The term "restaurant" means an establishment, other than a hotel, where
meals are regularly served at tables to the general public and which has seating capacity
for at least 30 guests at one time, and the principal part of the business is the serving of
food.
10) Underage Person: The term "Underage Person" means a person who is under the legal
drinking age as provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A.
Retail Licenses
13-303. License Required. No person, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, keep for sale or deliver
any intoxicating liquor, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or wine as part of a commercial transaction
without first having received a license to do so as provided in this Chapter; nor shall any private
club or public place, directly or indirectly, or upon any pretense or by any device, allow the
consumption or display of intoxicating liquor or serve any liquid for the purpose of mixing with
intoxicating liquor without first obtaining a license from the City as provided in this Chapter.
13-304. Types of Licenses. The following types of licenses are issued under this Chapter:
85
1) On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. On-sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be
granted only to hotels, clubs, and restaurants. A license shall be issued to clubs and
congressionally chartered veterans' organizations if they have been in existence for at
least three years and liquor sales will only be to members and bona fide guests.
2) Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued
to drugstores and an exclusive liquor store and shall permit off-sale of intoxicating liquor
and 3.2 percent malt liquor.
3) Wine Licenses. Wine licenses may be issued, with the approval of the Commissioner,
only to restaurants having facilities for seating at least 30 people at one time for the sale
of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume and for consumption on the licensed
premises only in conjunction with the sale of food. The holder of a wine license who is
also licensed to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor on-sale and whose gross receipts are at least
sixty percent (60%) attributable to the sale of food, may also sell intoxicating malt liquors
at on-sale without an additional license. A rabbi, priest, or minister of a church or other
established religious organization may import wine exclusively for sacramental purposes
without a license. No license shall be required for the resale of wine by a rabbi, priest,
minister or pastor of a duly organized religious organization to worshippers solely for
practicing religious rites in their homes.
4) On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License. On-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license may be
issued to bona fide clubs, restaurants, and hotels for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor
with the incidental sale of tobacco and soft drinks at retail, provided that no manufacturer
or wholesaler of such 3.2 percent malt beverage shall have any ownership, in whole or in
part, in the business of any licensee holding an “on sale” license. "On sale" licenses shall
permit the licensee to sell such 3.2 percent malt liquor for consumption on the premises
of the licensee described in such license.
5) Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License. Off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license may
be issued to general food stores and drug stores and permit the sale of 3.2 percent malt
liquor at retail in the original package for consumption off the premises only.
6) On-Sale Sunday Liquor License. On-sale Sunday liquor licenses may be issued only to a
restaurant, club or hotel with facilities for serving not less than thirty (30) guests at one
time, to which an on-sale intoxicating license has been issued. Such license shall permit
the sale of liquor to be consumed on the premises between the hours of noon Sunday and
1:00 a.m. on Monday in conjunction with the serving of food. Such license may permit
the sale of liquor to be consumed on the premises between the hours of 10:00 a.m.
Sunday and 1:00 a.m. on Monday in conjunction with the serving of food provided that
the licensee is in conformance with the Minnesota Clean Air Act and provided a public
hearing is held prior to the issuance of the license. No Sunday license is needed for on-
sale wine licenses.
7) Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Licenses. Temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses may be issued to a club or charitable, religious, or nonprofit organizations
86
in existence for three years. The license may authorize the on-sale of 3.2 percent malt
liquor for consumption on a specific premise for not more than two (2) consecutive days
and no individual organization may be granted such licenses for more than six (6) days
per calendar year. Licenses issued under this section are subject to all laws and
ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating liquor, except that mandatory liability
provisions and Minn. Stat. §340A.409 and 340A.504 subd. 3(d) do not apply,.
8) Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses. Temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor
license may be issued to a club, charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization, in
existence for at least three years, or to a state-registered political committee, in
connection with a social event with the city and sponsored by the licensee. The City shall
not issue more than three temporary licenses to any one organization or location during a
calendar year, and each such license is limited to not more than four consecutive days.
The license may authorize sales on premises other than that owned or permanently
occupied by the licensee. The license may provide that the licensee may contract for
intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full-year on-sale intoxicating
liquor license issued by any municipality. The licenses are subject to the terms, including
a license fee, imposed by the issuing municipality. Licenses issued under this section are
subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating liquor, except that
mandatory liability provisions and Minn. Stat. §340A.409 and 340A.504 subd. 3(d) do
not apply, and those other laws and ordinances which by their nature are not applicable.
A license approved by the City Council shall not be valid until approved by the
Commissioner of Public Safety. No more than three(3) four-day, four (4) three-day, or
six (6) two-day temporary licenses, in any combination not to exceed twelve (12) days
per year, may be issued for the sale of alcoholic beverages to any one organization or
registered political committee, or for any one location, within a 12-month period. Not
more than one temporary license may be issued to any one organization or registered
political committee, or for an y one location, within any 30-day period.
9) Club Licenses. Club licenses may be issued to clubs as provided in Minn. Stat. §
340A.404, subd. 1. No license shall be issued or renewed to a club which discriminates
against members or applicants for membership or guests of members on the basis of race.
10) Consumption and Display Permits. Consumption and display permits may be issued to a
bottle club which complies with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 340A.414 and which
has obtained a permit from the Commissioner of Public Safety. Consumption and display
permits shall not be issued in the City, except to establishments that had been issued such
a license on or prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
11) One-day Consumption and Display Permits. A nonprofit organization in conjunction
with a social activity held within the City and sponsored by that organization may apply
for a one-day temporary license for consumption and display purposes. There shall be no
sale of intoxicating liquor under this license, nor shall there be a fee charged at a
permitted social activity where said fee includes the cost of intoxicating liquor. The
applicant shall complete both State and City forms, and the City shall not issue more than
ten one-day consumption and display permits per calendar year.
87
13-305. License Period. Each renewal license shall be issued for a maximum period of
one year. Temporary licenses shall expire according to their terms. Except as otherwise
provided herein, liquor licenses expire on the last day of February each year. Consumption and
display permits expire on March 31 of each year.
13-306. Retail License Fees.
1) Annual Fees. The annual fees for all licenses and temporary shall be as set by City
Council resolution in amounts no greater than those amounts provided under Minn. Stat.
ch. 340A.
2) Prorated Fees. If a license application is made during the license year, the license shall
be issued for the remainder of the year for a pro rata fee, with any unexpired fraction of a
month being counted as one month.
3) Payment. All fees required to be paid in connection with such licenses shall be paid at the
time of the filing of the application. License and permit fees shall be paid into the general
fund.
4) Investigation Fees. Investigation fees shall be determined by City Council resolution.
Investigation fees are non-refundable. No investigation fee shall be charged for a
renewal application. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a
change in the control of a corporate license, change in manager, change in location, or
enlargement of the premises, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee.
Where a new application is filed as a result of incorporation or a change of name by an
existing licensee and the ownership control and interest in the license are unchanged, no
additional investigation fee will be required.
13-307. License Fee Refunds. License fees shall be refunded if an application for a license is
denied by the City Council, except where rejection is for a willful misstatement in the license
application. No part of the fee paid for any issued license shall be refunded except as authorized
under Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.408, subd. 5, upon application to the City Clerk within
20 days of the occurrence of any event provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.408,
subdivision 5.
13-308. Liability Insurance. Except as stated otherwise herein, all applicants for any liquor
license or consumption and display permit must, as a condition to the issuance of the license,
demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota
Statutes Section 340A.801 to the City, by providing proof of liquor liability/dram shop, general
liability, and workers compensation insurance coverage.
1) Liability. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing one of the following:
a) A certificate that there is in effect for the license period an insurance policy issued
by an insurer required to be licensed under section 60A.07, subdivision 4, or by
an insurer recognized as an eligible surplus lines carrier pursuant to section
88
60A.206 or pool providing at least $50,000 of coverage because of bodily injury to
any one person in any one occurrence, $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or
more persons in any one occurrence, $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of
property of others in any one occurrence, $50,000 for loss of means of support of
any one person in any one occurrence, and $100,000 for loss of mean of support of
two or more persons in any one occurrence;
b) A certificate of the state treasurer that the licensee has deposited with the state
treasurer $100,000 in cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings
banks or for trust funds having a market value of $100,000.
2) Dramshop. An annual aggregate insurance policy for dram shop insurance of not less than
$300,000 per policy year to cover each person, each occurrence, property damage each
occurrence, loss of means of support per person, loss of means of support each occurrence,
and policy aggregate.
3) Workers' Compensation Insurance. The policy limits for workers' compensation
insurance shall be as provided for by state law.
4) Additional Requirements. For purposes of Paragraphs A and B under this Section, the
City shall be named as additional insured on the liability insurance policy. The liability
insurance required by this section must provide that it may not be canceled: (1) for any
cause, except for nonpayment of premium, by either the insured or the insurer unless the
canceling party has first given 30 days' notice in writing to the City of intent to cancel the
policy; and (2) for nonpayment of premium unless the canceling party has first given ten
days' notice in writing to the City of intent to cancel the policy. The insurance limits
outlined in this section shall be effective for license renewals and immediately on any
new applications.
13-309. License Application. A license applicant shall complete the application form
provided by the City Clerk. The City Clerk may waive completion of any part of the form that is
inappropriate or unnecessary.
13-310. Execution of Application. If the application is by an individual, it shall be
signed and sworn to by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer thereof; if by a partnership,
by one of the partners; if by an incorporated association, by the operating officer or managing
officer thereof. If the applicant is a partnership, the application, license, and insurance policy
shall be made and issued in the name of all partners. It shall be unlawful to make any false
statement in an application.
13-311. Renewal Application.
1) Applications for the renewal of an existing license shall be made at least fort y-five (45)
days prior to the date of the expiration of the license, and shall state that everything in the
prior applications remains true and correct except as otherwise indicated.
89
2) Renewal applications for an on-sale license for a restaurant shall include a Certified
Public Accountant statement showing total sales, food sales, liquor sales, and percentage
of total sales for the previous year.
13-312. Investigations.
1) At the time of making an initial application, renewal application, or request for approval
for a new manager, the applicant shall, in writing, authorize the St. Louis Park Police
Department to investigate all facts set out in the application and do a personal
background and felony criminal record check on the applicant and Store Manager. The
applicant shall further authorize the St. Louis Park Police Department to release
information received from such investigation to the City Council.
2) Should the City Council deny the applicant's request for a license due, partially or solely,
to the applicant's prior conviction of a crime, the City Council shall notify the applicant
of the grounds and reasons for the denial; the applicable complaint and grievance
procedure as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 364.06; the earliest date the
applicant may reapply for a license; and that all competent evidence of rehabilitation will
be considered upon reapplication.
13-313. Hearing Required for New Licenses.
A public hearing for the issuance of a license for a new premises, or for a different
licensee at the same premises, shall be preceded by one (1) weeks published notice. A public
hearing is not required for temporary license applications.
13-314. Information Considered for License Approval. The City Council shall
consider the following in addition to conformity with state statutes and city ordinances in
determining whether a new or renewal license shall be granted:
1) The investigative and staff report submitted by the Police Department and City Clerk;
2) Information received through the public hearing process;
3) Whether the applicant has or will take affirmative action to minimize public safety
problems commonly associated with on-sale liquor establishments, including but not
limited to DWI drivers, illegal sale to minors, disturbing the peace, etc.;
4) The application and any other relevant information.
13-315. Granting or Transfer of License.
1) Applicant and Premises. A license shall be issued to the applicant only, and no license
shall be transferred except as provided in this Chapter. Each license shall be issued only
for the exact rooms and square footage described in the application. A license is valid
only in the compact and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises
described in the license, and all transactions relating to a sale under such license must
take place within such building or structure. Except as otherwise provided in this
90
Chapter, no license may be transferred to another person or another premises without the
approval of the City Council.
2) Building Under Construction. When a license is granted for a premises where the
building is under construction or otherwise not ready for occupancy, the City Clerk shall
not issue the license until notified by the Building Official that the building is ready for
occupancy.
3) Zoning Requirements Met. No license shall be granted until all applicable zoning
requirements are met or until all conditions for approval of the use have been satisfied.
4) Death of Licensee. In the event of the death of a person holding a license, the personal
representative of that person shall be allowed to continue to operate the business within
the terms of the license for a period not to exceed 90 days after the death of the licensee.
13-316. Corporations, Partnerships, or Associations.
1) All corporations, partnerships, and associations must designate a Store Manager. The Store
Manager must be a person working full-time at the licensed premises who is in charge of
day-to-day liquor sales.
2) Licenses issued to corporations shall be valid only so long as there is no change in the
officers or ownership interest of the corporation, as defined in this Chapter, unless such
change is approved by the Council. The requirement concerning change in officers does
not apply to corporations whose stock is traded on the New York or American Stock
Exchanges.
3) Licenses issued to associations or partnerships shall be valid only so long as there is no
change in the partnership or association, unless such change is approved by the Council.
4) Corporations holding licenses shall submit written notice to the City Clerk of any change in
Store Managers prior to the effective date of such change. The written notice shall designate
the new Store Manager. The new Store Manager shall be subject to the investigation
required by this Chapter.
5) Corporations, partnerships, or associations holding licenses shall submit written notice to
the City Clerk of any changes described herein on or before 30 days prior to the effective
date of any such change. Notwithstanding the definition of "interest" as defined in this
Chapter, in the case of a corporation, the licensee shall notify the City clerk when a
person not listed in the application acquires an interest that, when combined with that of a
spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child, exceeds 5 percent and shall give all information
about said person as is required of a person pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
6) The designation of a new Store Manager shall not cause the corporation's license to become
invalid before a decision is rendered by the City Manager or City Manager's designee,
provided proper notice and application are made by the applicant. A proposed new Store
Manager shall be referred to as the interim Store Manager. In the event an interim Store
91
Manager is rejected by the City Manager or City Manager's designee, the corporation shall
designate another interim Store Manager and make the required application within 15 days
of the decision by the City Manager or City Manager's designee. In any event, a corporation
shall be limited to 2 successive interim Store Managers.
13-317. Ineligible for License.
1) State Law. No license shall be issued to or held by any person
a) Made ineligible by State law;
b) Who is a person under 21 years of age;
c) Who is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien;
d) Who has had a liquor license revoked within five years of the license application,
or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a
holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, or
to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which
any such person is in any manner interested;
e) Who is not of good moral character and repute;
f) Who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer, or wholesaler; or
g) Who, within five years of the license application, has been convicted of a felony
or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the
manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcohol
beverage and who cannot show competent evidence under Minnesota Statutes
Section 364.03 of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties
of a licensee.
2) Store Manager Required. No licenses shall be granted to a corporation that does not have a
Store Manager.
3) Real Party in Interest. No license shall be granted to a person who is the spouse of a
person ineligible for a license under this Chapter or who, in the judgment of the council,
is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be
operated, under the license.
4) Residency Requirements. A license will not be renewed if, in the case of an individual,
the licensee is not a resident of the State at the time of the date for renewal; if, in the case
of a partnership, the managing partner is not a resident of the State at the time of the
renewal; or in the case of a corporation, if the Store Manager is not a resident of the State
at the time of the date of renewal. The time for establishing residency within the State
may, for good cause, be extended by the Council.
5) Delinquent Taxes or Charges. No license shall be granted for operation on any premises
on which state, city or county taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the state,
city, or county are delinquent and unpaid.
6) Ownership of Licensed Premises. No license shall be issued to an applicant unless the
applicant is the actual owner or proprietor of the proposed licensed premises.
92
7) Restaurants. No on-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued unless at least 50% of the
gross receipts of the establishment will be attributable to the sale of food. This requirement
shall be regulated as follows:
a) Each on-sale intoxicating licensee shall have the continuing obligation to have at
least 50% of gross receipts from the establishment during the preceding business
year attributable to the sale of food.
b) In the case of a new restaurant, the applicant must make a bona fide estimation that
at least 50% of the gross receipts from the sale of food and beverages of the
establishment during its first year of business will be attributable to the sale of food.
c) For the purpose of this section, "establishment" shall include the food and beverage
portion of a multi-service establishment. Financial records for the food and
beverage portion must be maintained separately from the records of the remainder of
the establishment.
d) For the purpose of this section, "sale of food" shall include gross receipts attributable
to the sale of food items, soft-drinks and nonalcoholic beverages. It shall not include
any portion of gross receipts attributable to the nonalcoholic components of plain or
mixed alcoholic beverages, such as ice, soft-drink mixes or other mixes.
e) The City may require the production of such documents or information, including
but not limited to books, records, audited financial statements or pro forma financial
statements as it deems necessary or convenient to enforce these provisions. The City
may also obtain its own audit or review of such documents or information, and all
licensees shall cooperate with such a review, including prompt production of
requested records.
f) In addition to other remedies that it may have available, the City may place the
license of any on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to
one year, when the sale of food is reported, or found to be, less than fifty percent
(50%) of gross receipts for any business year. During the probationary period, the
licensee shall prepare any plans and reports, participate in any required meetings,
and take other action that the City may require to increase the sale of food.
13-318. Conditions of Approval. At the time a license is issued pursuant to this Chapter
or a consumption and display permit is approved, the City Council may attach special conditions
to the approval based upon the nature of the business, the location of the business, and verified
complaints, if any, to protect the health, safety, welfare, and quietude of the community and
ensure harmony with the location where the business is located. Violation of any of the
conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the license.
93
13-319. Restrictions on Issuance of Licenses. The City Council may, by resolution,
restrict the number of any type of license issued within designated areas or zoning districts
within the City.
13-320. Nudity on Licensed Premises. No liquor licensee shall:
(1) Employ or use any person in the sale or service of alcoholic beverages or as employees
for the purpose of staging any nature of “lingerie show” in or upon the licensed premises
while such person is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as to expose to view
any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or of any portion of the pubic
hair, anus, cleft of the buttocks, or genitals;
(2) Employ or use the services of any hostess while such hostes s is unclothed or in such
attire, costume or clothing as described in subsection (1) above;
(3) Encourage or permit any person on the licensed premises to touch, caress, or fondle the
breast, buttocks, anus or genitals of any other person;
(4) Permit any employee or person to wear or use any device or covering exposed to view,
which simulates the breast, genitals, anus, pubic hair or nay portion thereof;
(5) Permit any person to perform acts (or acts which simulate):
a) With or upon another person, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, flagellation
or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law;
b) Masturbation or bestiality;
c) With or upon another person the touching, caressing or fondling of the buttocks, anus,
genitals or female breast;
d) The displaying of the pubic hair, anus, genitals or female breasts below the top of the
areola;
(6) Permit any person to use artificial devices or inanimate objects to depict any of the
prohibited activities described above;
(7) Permit any person to remain in or upon the premises who exposes to public view any
portion of his or her genitals or anus;
(8) Permit the showing of film, still pictures, electronic reproduction or other visual
reproductions depicting any acts not permitted on the premises under subsections 1-7 of
this Section.
94
(9) Permit any type of “lingerie show” or similar exhibition in any portion of a licensed
establishment other than on a raised stage a suitable distance apart from the area
generally reserved for the seating of patrons.
13-321. Compliance Checks.
(1) Compliance Checks. From time to time, the City shall conduct compliance checks. Such
compliance checks may involve, but are not limited to, engaging underage persons to enter
the licensed premises to attempt to purchase alcohol and alcohol related products.
(2) Underage Persons. If underage persons are used for compliance checks they shall not be
guilty of unlawful possession of alcohol when such items are obtained as a part of a
compliance check. No underage person used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a
false identification misrepresenting the person's age, and all underage persons lawfully
engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the person's age asked by
the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification for which he or she
is asked.
13-322. Revocation or Suspension of License and/or Civil Fine. The City Council may
suspend for up to sixty (60) days or revoke any liquor license or permit or impose a civil fine of
up to $2,000 for each violation, or impose any combination of these sanctions, as provided in
Minnesota Statutes, section 340A.415, for violation of any provision or condition of this Chapter
or any other City ordinance or State law relating to alcoholic beverages.
13-323. Notice and Hearing. Revocation or suspension of a license by the City Council
shall be preceded by public hearing conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section
14.57 to 14.70. The City Council may appoint a hearing examiner or may conduct a hearing
itself. The hearing notice shall be given at least 20 days prior to the hearing, include notice of
the time and place of hearing, and state the nature of the charges against the licensee and specify
the penalty that the City may impose for the violation.
13-324. Administrative Penalty. Prior to expiration of the 20 day notice period, the
licensee may stipulate to both the violation identified in the notice and an administrative penalty
(revocation, suspension of up to 60 days, and/or up to $2,000 civil fine) set by the City Manager,
in lieu of a hearing before the City Council. The stipulation must be approved by the City
Council. If approved by the City Council, the administrative penalty proposed by the stipulation
must be completed within 30 days. If the City Council does not approve the stipulation, the City
Council may impose penalties provided under Section 13-324, following a hearing provided
under Section 13-325.
13-325. Violations. The following actions by an applicant or licensee shall constitute
violations of this Section:
(1) Providing false or misleading statements made on a license application or renewal, or
failure to abide by the commitments, promises or representations made to the City
Council.
95
(2) Violation of any special conditions under which the license was granted, including, but
not limited to, the timely payment of real estate taxes, and all other charges.
(3) Violation of any Federal, State, or local law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor, 3.2
percent malt liquor, or controlled substance.
(4) Creation of a nuisance on the premises or in the surrounding area.
(5) That the licensee suffered or permitted illegal acts upon the licensed premises or on
property owned or controlled by the licensee adjacent to the licensed premises, unrelated
to the sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor.
(6) That the licensee had knowledge of illegal acts upon or attributable to the licensed
premises, but failed to report the same to the police.
(7) Expiration or cancellation of any required insurance, or failure to notify the City within a
reasonable time of changes in the term of the insurance or the carriers.
13-326. Inactive License. The City Council may revoke the intoxicating liquor or 3.2
percent malt liquor license of any establishment granted a license that is not under construction
and exhibiting satisfactory progress toward completion within 6 months from its issuance, or any
establishment that ceases operation for a period of 6 months. A hearing shall be held to
determine what progress has been made toward opening or reopening the establishment and, if
satisfactory progress is not demonstrated, the Council may revoke the license.
Retail Sales Regulations
13-327. Right of Inspection.
(1) Any City designated police, fire or health officer displaying proper identification shall have
the unqualified right to enter, inspect, and search the premises of any licensee hereunder
without a warrant, during business hours or when owners, managers, or other employees
are located on the premises.
(2) The business records of the licensee, including Federal and State tax returns, shall be
available for inspection by the City at all reasonable times upon written request.
13-328. Responsibility of Licensee.
(1) Orderly Conduct. Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct on the licensee's
place of business including conduct and activity attributable to the business on property
owned or controlled by the licensee. Every licensee shall also cooperate with the City in
controlling activity attributable to the business in surrounding areas.
96
(2) Act of Employee. The act of any employee in violation of this Chapter on the licensed
premises is deemed the act of the licensee as well, and the licensee shall be liable for all
penalties provided by this Chapter and other laws equally with the employee.
13-329. Hours of Operation.
(1) Hours and Days of Sale. Hours and days of sale shall be as allowed by state law. There
shall be no consumption or display of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor during the
hours that sale is prohibited by state law.
(2) Non-employees on Premises. A liquor licensee shall not allow non-employees on the
business premises from fifteen (15) minutes after the sale of intoxicating liquor is
prohibited until the sale is again permitted except as hereinafter provided. On-sale
intoxicating liquor licensees and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licensees may permit non-
employees on the premises during its normal hours of operation when the sale of
intoxicating and 3.2 percent malt liquor is prohibited, provided, that there be no sale,
consumption, or display of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor during the hours in which
the sale or consumption of liquor is prohibited, and provided that the licensee has closed off
all access to the bar area in a manner approved by the City.
13-330. Posting License. All liquor licensees shall have the license posted in a
conspicuous place that is visible to the public in the licensed establishment at all times.
13-331. Building Changes. Proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes
the character of the establishment, or extension of premises previously licensed shall be reported to
the City Clerk at or before the time application is made for a building permit for any such change.
The enlargement, substantial alteration or extension shall not be allowed unless the Council
approves an amendment to the license.
13-332. Restrictions Involving Underage Persons.
(1) No licensee or licensee's agent or employee shall i) serve or dispense upon the licensed
premises any intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor to a person under the legal drinking
age; ii) permit any person under the legal drinking age to be furnished or allowed to
consume any such liquors on the licensed premises; or iii) permit any person under the
legal drinking age to be delivered any such liquors.
(2) No person under the legal drinking age shall enter a licensed premises for the purpose of
purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage. It is not unlawful for any person who
has attained the age of 18 years to enter licensed premises for the following purposes:
(a) to perform work for the establishment, including the serving of alcoholic
beverages, unless otherwise prohibited by statute;
(b) to consume meals; and
97
(c) to attend social functions that are held in a portion of the establishment where liquor
is not sold.
(3) No person under the legal drinking age shall possess any intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt
liquor. Possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under the legal drinking age at a
place other than the household of the parent or guardian is prima facie evidence of intent to
consume it at a place other than the household of the person's parent or guardian.
(4) No underage person shall misrepresent the person's age for the purpose of obtaining
intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor, nor shall the person enter any premises
licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor for the purposes
of purchasing or having served or delivered any alcoholic beverage. Nor shall any such
person purchase, attempt to purchase, consume, or have another person purchase for the
underage person any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor.
(5) Identification Requirements.
(a) Identification Required. Any person shall, upon demand of the licensee, his
employee, or agent, produce and permit to be examined one of the following forms
of identification provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.503, subdivision
6.
(b) Prima Facie Evidence. In every prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this
section relating to the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt
beverages to underage persons and in every proceeding before the Council with
respect thereto, the fact that the underage person involved has obtained and
presented to the licensee, his employee or agent, a driver's license, passport or
identification card from which it appears that said person was not an underage
person and was regularly issued such identification card, shall be prima facie
evidence that the licensee, his agent or employee is not guilty of a violation of such
a provision and shall be conclusive evidence that a violation, if one has occurred,
was not willful or intentional.
13-333. Employment of Persons Under Eighteen Years of Age. No person under
eighteen (18) years of age may serve or sell intoxicating liquor in a retail intoxicating liquor
establishment.
13-334. Sales to Obviously Intoxicated Persons. No licensee, licensee's agent or
employee shall sell, give, or furnish, alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person.
13-335. Prohibited Conditions.
(1) Prostitution. No licensee shall knowingly permit the licensed premises or any room in
those premises or any adjoining building directly under the licensee's control to be used by
prostitutes.
98
(2) Controlled Substances. No licensee shall knowingly permit the sale, possession or
consumption of controlled substances on the licensed premises in violation of state law.
(3) Gambling. Gambling and gambling devices are not permitted on licensed premises. State
lottery tickets may be purchased and sold within licensed premises as authorized by the
director of the state lottery.
13-336. Ownership of Equipment. No equipment or fixture in any licensed place shall be
owned in whole or in part by any manufacturer or distiller except such as shall be expressly
permitted by state law.
13-337. Samples. Off-sale licensees may provide samples of malt liquor, wine, liqueurs,
cordials, and distilled spirits which the licensee currently has in stock and is offering for sale to the
general public without obtaining an additional license, provided the wine, liqueur, cordial, and
distilled spirits samples are dispensed at no charge and consumed on the licensed premises during
the permitted hours of off-sale in a quantity less than 100 milliliters of malt liquor per variety per
customer, 50 milliliters of wine per variety per customer, 25 milliliters of liqueur or cordial, and 15
milliliters of distilled spirits per variety per customer.
13-338. Unlawful Acts.
(1) No person shall consume alcoholic beverages on licensed premises more than 15 minutes
after the hour when a sale thereof can be legally made.
(2) No person shall possess open containers of alcoholic beverages or consume alcoholic
beverages on public streets, public parking lots, or on parking lots under the control of a
liquor licensee outside the licensed structure or on private property generally open to the
public unless possession or consumption for a specific event on such property is
approved by the City as provided in this Chapter.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect on December 16, 2000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
99
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2184-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13,
PART 3 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CONCERNING THE SALE, CONSUMPTION AND
DISPLAY OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
This ordinance amends the liquor licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park to comply
with state statute and expands certain provisions to assist in enforcement of applicable liquor
license laws and regulations. This ordinance goes into effect December 16, 2000.
Adopted by the City Council November 20, 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: November 29, 2000
9912-sum
100
CONSENT ITEM # 5
City of St. Louis Park
November 20, 2000
5. Approve first reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00 and set second
reading for December 4, 2000.
Background:
On June 5, 2000, the City Council approved a Preliminary and Final Plat for the Novartis
Addition. Also included as a part of this plat was a petition to vacate a portion of Stephens Drive
west of Utica Avenue South. The second reading of the Ordinance to vacate was approved by
the City Council on June 19, 2000.
The attorney for Novartis has stated that there is an error in the legal description of the approved
Ordinance. The Ordinance describes the vacation of Stephens Drive. The request is to change
the description to West 24th Street to correspond with the original plat dedication. A portion of
West 24th Street west of TH 100 was renamed to Stephens Drive in 1992.
Attachments: Proposed Corrected Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
101
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2170-00 VACATING
PORTION OF WEST 24TH STREET (NKA STEPHENS DRIVE)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the street proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with
the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the street, and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said
petition to the City Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park
Sailor, on April 19, 2000 as directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon
said petition and has determined that the street is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for
the best interest of the public that said street be vacated.
Section 2. The following described street, as now dedicated and laid out within the
corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That part of West 24th Street (nka Stephens Drive) as dedicated in the plat of
RIDGE ADDITION lying west of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 2,
Block 1, said RIDGE ADDITION.
reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over,
and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility
purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance is contingent upon approval of the final plat and dedication of a
utility and drainage easement over the portion of the street to be vacated, and shall not take effect
until at least fifteen days after its publication.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 4,
2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-26-VAC2/N/res/ord
102
CONSENT ITEM # 6
City of St. Louis Park
November 20, 2000
6. Motion to approve the attached resolution accepting the grant of $100,000
designed for assistance with the development of soccer fields in the Oak Park
Village area.
Background
On August 7, 2000 the City of St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-091
approving the application of a Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission/Minnesota Department of
Children, Families, and Learning Grant. This grant has more commonly been referred to as the
Mighty Kicks Grant. It is a matching grant to cities to design, furnish, equip, renovate, replace or
construct park and recreation facility soccer fields.
Grant Selection
The City of St. Louis Park was awarded a $100,000 grant to be used for the construction of
soccer fields at Walker Park and the Oak Park Village site. This resolution and a signed
agreement must be returned to the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission (MASC) by the end
of November 2000.
Next Steps
Staff will be presenting the proposed Master Plan for the Oak Park Village area at the November
27 Study Session for Council review. It is staff’s hope that the Master Plan can then be brought
to the City Council on December 18, 2000. For the purpose of this grant, cost estimates were
completed on the soccer field areas only. A cost estimate of the entire master plan is being
prepared by SRF and will be presented to the City Council at the Study Session.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
103
RESOLUTION NO. 00-143
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF A MINNESOTA AMATEUR
SPORTS COMMISSION/MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN,
FAMILIES, AND LEARNING GRANT
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission (MASC) and the Department of
Children Families & Learning (CFL), via the State General Fund, provides grant funds to assist
local government units of the State of Minnesota for the development and renovation of athletic
facilities and soccer fields; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires to contract and develop Walker Park and Oak
Park Village for the sport of boys and girls soccer, and other athletic/social activities.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. It is estimated that the total cost of developing said facility shall be $716,891, and the
City of St. Louis Park is requesting $100,000 from the MASC/CFL Youth Enrichment
Grant Program and will assume responsibility for a match requirement of $616,891 (with
the Soccer Association contributing $35,000).
2. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to own, and assume 100 percent operational costs for
said sport facility, and will operate said facility for its intended purpose for the functional
life of the facility, which is estimated to be 35 years.
3. The City of St. Louis Park City Council agrees to enter into necessary and required
agreements with the MASC/CFL for the specific purpose of renovating a sport facility
and long-term program direction.
4. That the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park are authorized and
directed to execute said application and serve as the official liaison with the MASC/CFL.
Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
104
Consent Item 7a
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 18, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonette (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Paul Carver,
Michael Garelick (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Dennis Morris,
Ken Gothberg, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Carver called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of October 4, 2000
Mr. Morris moved approval of minutes of October 4, 2000. The motion passed on a vote
of 4-0-1 with Carver, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor and Velick abstaining.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 00-51-VAR – Request of Park Land Company for a variance to reduce
the required usable open space for a mixed use residential/office proposal at 5755
Wayzata Boulevard
and
Case No. 00-52-PUD – Request of Park Land Company for a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development to construct a mixed use residential/office project consisting of 50,000
square feet of office and 263 residential units at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report. She concluded that the
seven findings for granting a variance have been met and recommended approval of a
variance for reduced usable open space and the preliminary PUD. She noted that the
following modifications were requested as part of the PUD: building height - increase to
25 stories, floor area ratio - increase to 2.5, and 15% parking reduction.
Ms. Velick asked what the impact on traffic would be as a result of the north
frontage road being extended from Zarthan Avenue.
105
Ms. Erickson stated that the office entrance would be from the frontage road and
the residential entrance from 16th Street. She described the location of other
development in the area.
Mr. Gothberg asked where the nearest bus stop is located.
Ms. Erickson stated that there is a bus that travels on 16th street and that Costco is
required to put in at least a platform for a bus stop.
Mr. Gothberg asked how the residential access related to the Costco site.
Ms. Erickson stated that the access would be directly across from Costco access at
a signalized intersection.
Mr. Gothberg asked if utilizing roof tops for open space had been discussed.
Ms. Erickson described the location of the roof tops proposed to be utilized as
open space.
Mr. Morris stated that it appears that we are being asked to increase the building
height and are adding more units by reducing the parking and open space
requirement. If the developer stayed within the requirements, would they fall into
the acceptable open space and parking requirements or is that what is creating the
disparity.
Ms. Erickson stated that the zoning code states that residential uses are only
permitted by PUD, but the regular part of the code says that the 50 units per acre
densities can be increased by 50% if they meet certain criteria and this is an
encouragement to do greater densities.
Mr. Morris asked if they stayed with the 20 stories would they need the reduction
in parking and open space.
Ms. Erickson stated that they could actually make a bigger footprint and still do it
in 20 stories.
Chair Carver asked why there is a 6000 square foot difference in open space
between what is stated on the plans and what staff is reporting.
Ms. Erickson stated that there was a miscommunication about what could be
counted. The developer looked at an area and included all of it if the area met the
minimum dimension of 30 feet, where staff does not count any portion that is not
30 feet wide.
Chair Carver asked if the pool and tennis courts were included in the open space.
106
Ms. Erickson stated that this is correct.
Stephen Young, President of Young & Wilz Architects, 325 Second Avenue North,
Minneapolis was present. He stated that the staff report is thorough and represents his
position regarding the development. He stated that this project is proposed primarily as
market rate rental apartments with a fairly sizable office component. 50,000 square feet
isn’t an overwhelming large office building anymore. He stated that part of the reason
that this project has merit is not only from a financial point of view, but from a City point
of view, there is a tremendous stock of commercial, retail and office capacity in th is
general area without a lot of housing options for the people who work there. He
anticipated that the primary resident profile would be a professional or working couples
who live or work in the general area now and want to stay in area. The project would
meet a housing need that exists in the area. He described the two entrances and believed
they provide a better sense of privacy and control over the site. He stated that in respect
to whether the open space and parking issues would be helped if this were only 50 units
per acre and under 20 stories, the straight forward answer is that it would certainly help
the parking, but as far as the open space, the reality is no matter how many floors you
have, the amount of open space is still the amount of open space we have because we
have tried to get a fairly narrow footprint by elevating the building to preserve as much of
the open space on the site as possible. He pointed out that the open space requirement
does define open space as a minimum 30 foot by 30 foot block of space, and it was his
understanding that if it were at least 30 feet by 30 feet you could take the whole area as if
it were part of the applicable areas. He would not dispute staff’s calculations, but wanted
to note that in addition to the space that is calculable, they are also providing additional
spaces (balconies, penthouse terraces, and the neighboring candlestick pond) that don’t
fall under the calculations, but are in fact open space and available to the tenants.
Mr. Garelick asked for a breakdown of bedroom sizes and number of rentals of each.
Mr. Young stated that the typical floor of 12 units would have six 2 bedroom units, four 1
bedroom den units, and two 1 bedroom units. He stated that there are 9 penthouse units
that would average approximately 1800 square feet which they anticipate would be
primarily for corporate use.
Mr. Garelick asked if the plan was similar to Churchill apartments downtown.
Mr. Young did not know what the Churchhill apartments marketing plan was. He stated
that he was using the rental rate of $1.20 a square foot and the units are 5%-10% larger
than average.
Ms. Bissonnette asked what the average monthly rental rate would be.
Mr. Young stated that a 1 bedroom would be $900 per month, 1 bedroom/den would be
$1000 - $1050 per month and 2 bedroom would be $1200 - $1400 per month, but would
not be luxury units. He stated he saw primary uses being for working couples, roommate
type arrangements with two working adults or retired.
107
Chair Carver asked if there are any common use terraces.
Mr. Young stated that there are terraces on grade for everyone’s use, but upper terraces
were associated with penthouse units.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated that he is fairly neutral on the project. He said
that he is concerned that the plan is for a market rate apartment complex for professional
working couples and not a senior project. The one element he had not heard tonight was
about children and the lack of open space for them to play. He stated that he is concerned
about his neighborhood and the impact of this development on Blackstone Park.
With no one else wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Morris asked if the two areas in the parking lot are counted as open space.
Ms. Erickson stated that an area would have to have a minimum 30 foot dimension to be
counted.
Mr. Morris said he does not believe that traffic islands are open space and he is not seeing
any green area on the plan.
Ms. Erickson stated that along the south side there is a grassy area that is 30 feet wide
that would be open space and it opens up onto the lamplighter pond area. She described
other locations of green spaces.
Mr. Morris said he is concerned that there is not enough usable open space and does not
believe the intent of the ordinance is to count a balcony on a private residence as open
space. Open space is a community area that is available for all residents’ use. He stated
he is not in favor of reducing what m ay be required. He questioned the appropriateness
of this size of development in that location. He stated that this is an island of apartment
surrounded by retail and office complexes, does not offer many amenities for the
residents and has a limited amount of open space. He does not agree with the theory that
the people who live there will be the people that are walking or driving short distances to
the business center.
Mr. Gothberg stated that he believes that with all of the office development in tha t area,
the residential units would rapidly fill up with people who work there and others who
work downtown. He is concerned that the designated open space would be filled with
trees and would not be an adequate open space if you are looking for a play area for
children.
Mr. Garelick stated that he is in favor of the project because the vacancy rate in St. Louis
Park is 1% on apartments and it is very difficult for young professionals to find an
108
apartment in St. Louis Park. He agreed that it may stick out, but will provide 263
residencies that would increase the population in the demographic profile that this would
attract.
Mr. Timian stated that there is a resident tower in St. Paul called Skyline Towers, similar
to this design with little green space, was nice when built, but is now a ghetto. He is
concerned that this project could be a ghetto in 10 years. He believes that something
needs to be done about green space or this is not going to be a place where people are
going to want to live. He is not opposed to the density, but feels that having little green
space in a sea of cement is not a healthy decision.
Mr. Morris stated that the intent of the preliminary PUD is to have the opportunity to
discuss and recommend changes in design features that would come back in a final PUD.
He stated that he would be more in favor of reducing the parking requirements and
increasing the open space availability. There could be a redesign of the parking areas to
bring some of that excess island space back up to the building and creating a trade off
between the parking spaces and green space.
Ms. Bissonnette suggested that the tennis courts be included as part of the green space.
She is in favor of the mixed use of residential, business and commercial to bring livable
space in the area. She is also in favor of reducing parking for green space.
Mr. Timian suggested looking at cutting off one of the wings of the office building and
using that area for green space. He said he is not opposed to density, but believes you
need to have a human scale also.
Chair Carver stated he believes that this is a workable project. He explained his
experience of living in the Marquette Place apartments downtown. He stated that this
project provides an alternative for green space with its close proximity to the pond. He
stated that he envisions the people living here, working downtown and feels that it is a
huge benefit for St. Louis Park to be close to downtown. He also feels that people would
chose to live here because of the location that includes close proximity to Northwest
Racquet Club and easy access to Cedar Lake Trail. He said that residents would desire to
enjoy the open space off the site and surrounding area. He didn’t see this location as a
place where people with children are going to be looking to live for a very long period of
time. He noted that of all the projects that have come to the Planning Commission in the
last couple of years, this project comes the closest to meeting the requirements that were
initially set out. He stated that he would support a motion recommending the variance
and PUD.
Ms. Velick stated that she likes the plan and the idea of removing the tennis courts. In
addition, she asked if there is a gym within the building.
Mr. Young stated that there is an exercise gym within the building.
109
Mr. Timian stated that the developer stated that this building is to house the same
demographics as the Excelsior Boulevard project, however there are currently a lot of
children playing on tar at that location.
Chair Carver asked Mr. Garelick if he knew what the rent was for a new townhouse on
Excelsior Boulevard.
Mr. Garelick stated that according to the developer they were getting $2000 a month for
the townhouses. He stated that most 2 bedroom townhouses were renting for about
$1500. He suspected that the market rate may be higher than the developer was
projecting. He asked if any of this project was on a tax subsidy.
Ms. Erickson stated that the applicant is going to meet with the City Council to look at
either tax abatement or TIF on the project.
Mr. Garelick asked how much of a subsidy would the City be looking at for this type of
project.
Ms. Erickson stated that she did not know, but noted the need for a subsidy.
Mr. Morris asked whether he could vote in favor of the project, but against the variance.
Ms. Erickson stated that if the variance did not pass the developer would have to change
the plan. She suggested the vote be taken separately.
Mr. Gothberg moved to approve the variance for reduced usable open space for the
mixed use/residential-office building at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard for Park Land
Development, subject to conditions as recommended by staff and with the additional
comments requesting that Park Land Development look at ways in which they could
further increase the usable open space beyond what was being granted in the variance.
The motion passed 5-2 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg and Velick voting in
favor and Timian and Morris opposed.
Ms. Bissonnette moved to approve the preliminary PUD for the mixed use/residential-
office building at 5755 Wayzata Boulevard for Park Land Development, subject to
conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed 5-1-1 with Bissonnette, Carver,
Garelick, Gothberg and Velick voting in favor, Timian opposed and Morris abstaining.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business - None
6. Communications
110
A. Board of Zoning Appeals meetings for September and October cancelled
B. Other – Ms. Erickson stated that Comprehensive Plan for St. Louis Park won a MN
American Planning Association Award. Chair Carver, on behalf of the Commission,
commended Ms. Erickson for all of her hard work and effort.
7. Miscellaneous
Follow-up discussion on Item 3A:
Mr. Garelick questioned whether or not the Commission should have another discussion
regarding the amount of usable open space required for a development. Mr. Timian
emphasized the need to look at what the proposed development could become in the
future. i.e. Skyline Towers in St. Paul. Chair Carver stated that a distinction should be
made that St. Louis Park is a different type of community with the development and
activity that goes on. Mr. Timian didn’t believe it was good to back down on the
requirements that were stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Erickson stated that the
actual open space requirement was stated in the zoning code. The Commission agreed
that most development had more parking spaces than were needed and were in favor of
more green space. The Commission was concerned about proposals that were made by
developers in the past and then were changed, i.e. Excelsior Boulevard Townhouses.
They discussed the need to look at these proposals and what was going to be livable in
the long term for people in the community and not assume who was going to live in a
development. Ms. Erickson briefly explained the results of the traffic study for the area
and the Commission discussed increased traffic and congestion expected due to
development in the area.
8. Adjournment
Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
111
Consent Item 7b
HUMAN RESOURCES
To: Charlie Meyer, City Manager
From: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Subject: Pay equity report
Date: 11/15/00
Attached is the revised pay equity report, which includes current pay and benefit data on our
positions. The State Department of Employee Relations (DOER) notified the City that we must
submit current data.
Preliminary run through the State of MN Pay equity program shows compliance. I tend to
reserve final judgement on compliance until the State processes the data and informs us their
official final notification.
Action needed: I request that this report be issued to the Council on Monday November 20,
2000 at the study session. If no comments are received by Council, we will forward the report to
DOER stating the Council has reviewed and approved the report.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please
feel free to ask me.
112
Consent Item 7c
MINUTES
CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 11, 2000
City Hall, Council Chambers
I. Call to Order
Chair Beck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. Introductions and Attendance
It was moved by Commissioner Ahrens and seconded by Commissioner Moga to excuse the
absence of the following members: Michael Sixel, Paul Carver, Norm Kirschner, Ruth
Kirschner, David Ornstein, and Carol Walsh. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
A. Members Present: George Beck, Cynthia Ahrens, Cheryl Ernst, Brian Fiderlein, Christopher
Johnson, Bryan Leary, Dorothea Moga, James Schaefer, and Christopher Smith.
B. Members Excused: Michael Sixel, Paul Carver, Norm Kirschner, Ruth Kirschner, David
Ornstein, and Carol Walsh.
C. Members Unexcused: None.
D. Staff and Guests Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires.
E. Vacancies: None.
III. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Schaefer and seconded by Commissioner Ahrens that the
minutes of September 13, 2000 be approved with the following amendments:
Item IV. Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions, paragraph 6, sentences 1 and 2 should read
“Chair Beck moved that the Charter Commissioner recommend to the City Council
establishment of a formal standing public safety advisory board. Commissioner Smith seconded
the motion”
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
113
IV. Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions
Commission members reviewed the draft of the report to be submitted to the City Council. It was
moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Ernst that the report be
approved with the following amendments:
Background section, paragraph 2 modified to read:
In February of 2000, the St. Louis Park City Council asked the Charter Commission to act as a
neutral, third party to study the issue and make recommendations. The Charter Commission took
testimony from a former League of Minnesota Cities lobbyist, past and present Civil Service
Commission members, union representatives, Council members, the City Attorney’s office, and
staff. In taking testimony, the Charter Commission utilized a consistent set of questions or asked
those giving testimony to address similar relevant issues. The Charter Commission expresses its
deep gratitude to those who came forward to provide their insights on the merits of the current
Civil Service Commissions.
Other Cities’ Efforts section moved to immediately prior to Charter Commission
Recommendations section and modified to read:
Staff research has revealed the following actions in other cities:
Columbia Heights: The chief of police was asked to participate in a panel discussion for the City
of Columbia Heights. Its Civil Service Commission heard testimony from present and past
commissioners as well as police professionals. Its commission referred the matter to the City
Council for action last month. The City Council has not yet taken action.
Spring Lake Park: The City of Spring Lake Park City Council also took action, voting to abolish
its Police Civil Service Commission during the fall of 1999.
Minnetonka: In Minnetonka, staff believes the experience in other cities, including St. Louis
Park, poses serious questions about the desirability of continuing its Police Civil Service
Commission. Staff believes that there should be a process for exploring the issue, so that all
affected parties have an opportunity to present their views and to determine any factors unique to
Minnetonka. They are recommending that the City Council ask the Minnetonka Charter
Commission to evaluate the continued existence of the Minnetonka Police Civil Service
Commission and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Minnetonka Charter
Commission holds its annual meeting on November 2, 2000, and could begin the study then, if
authorized.
Arguments to Abolish the Commission section, point 7, modified to read:
7. The employment area has become very legalistic and very contentious. This places
citizens in the position of making critical employment decisions without having any related
training. It exposes commission members to consequences that no other commissioners have,
both in terms of liability and time. A well-meaning commissioner could make an inadvertent
114
comment that either invalidates the whole process or subjects her or him to personal liability. St.
Louis Park Fire Civil Service commissioners have been personally sued, and the City has needed
to absorb this cost. There are also other potential negative consequences. In a contested
employment matter before the St. Louis Park Fire Civil Service Commission, one of the
commissioners worked for a bank located in St. Louis Park. The union sent a letter to the bank
management commenting on the commissioner and withdrawing the union’s funds from the
bank. Additionally, the contested termination hearing lasted for 2 ½ years and consumed an
inordinate amount of the commissioners’ time and City funds. The negative effect on community
relations was palpable for some.
Arguments to Abolish the Commission section, point 9, modified to read:
9. There is a potential conflict between the commissioners and the city manager in the
selection process for high profile positions such as the fire and police chiefs. The commissioners
must recommend only three candidates to the city manager and may use entirely different criteria
in choosing those three than the city manager would use. For example, the commission could be
looking for an old-style, authoritarian chief while the city manager wants a progressive, team
player who can work effectively with staff and other department heads.
Arguments to Abolish the Commission section, point 15, modified to read:
15. Civil service delays to the hiring process because it is sometimes difficult to get all three
members scheduled at the same time. Testimony in both St. Louis Park and Columbia Heights
demonstrated that they have lost some good candidates in today’s highly competitive
employment market because of this time delay.
Charter Commission Recommendations section modified to read:
As requested by the City Council in February of 2000, the Charter Commission has reviewed the
merits of the current Fire and Police Civil Service Commissions. This was initiated particularly
in light of recent State legislation allowing city councils to abolish police civil service
commissions by unanimous vote. The Charter Commission has pursued a methodical approach
to this task since March, receiving and deliberating over testimony provided by interested
parties. It should be noted that, while all interested parties were invited to testify, some past and
present civil service commissioners chose not to do so. Given the history and arguments
presented above, as well as the attached minutes and other documents from relevant meetings,
the Charter Commission took action on unanimous votes on September 13 to recommend the
following to the City Council:
Police Civil Service Commission
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has declared in Chapter 419 that cities may abolish Police
Civil Service Commissions; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council requested that the St. Louis Park Charter
Commission investigate the need for a Police Civil Service Commission; and
115
WHEREAS, the Charter Commission analyzed the Police Civil Service rules and regulations;
gathered statistics from other Minnesota cities; analyzed other cities’ experience with Police
Civil Service Commissions; interviewed a former representative of the League of Minnesota
Cities; accepted all written comments concerning the need for a Commission; interviewed City
employees, the Police Chief, a Police Union representative, and current and former members of
the Police Civil Service Commission; and
WHEREAS, in making this recommendation, the Charter Commission finds that the work of the
Police Civil Service Commission is redundant of City and Union procedures and State and
Federal law. The limited duties, with which the Police Civil Service Commission is charged, are
or can be carried out by other City, Union, and ad hoc entities. The concerns the Police Civil
Service Commission is obligated to examine are adequately addressed by State and Federal law,
and City policies applicable to all other City employees; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Commission recognizes the work of past and present Police Civil
Service Commissions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the St. Louis Park Charter Commission
recommends that the City Council take all steps necessary to:
Dissolve the Police Civil Service Commission by City Council vote.
Seek citizen input on matters of police-related citizen concern.
Fire Civil Service Commission
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council requested that the St. Louis Park Charter
Commission investigate the need for a Fire Civil Service Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Commission analyzed the Fire Civil Service rules and regulations;
gathered statistics from other Minnesota cities; analyzed other cities’ experience with Fire Civil
Service Commissions, interviewed a former representative of the League of Minnesota Cities,
accepted all written comments concerning the need for a Commission; interviewed City
employees, the Fire Chief, a Fire Union representative, and current and former members of the
Fire Civil Service Commission; and
WHEREAS, in making this recommendation, the Charter Commission finds that the work of the
Fire Civil Service Commission is redundant of City and Union procedures and State and Federal
law. The limited duties, with which the Fire Civil Service Commission is charged, are or can be
carried out by other City, Union, and ad hoc entities. The concerns the Fire Civil Service
Commission is obligated to examine are adequately addressed by State and Federal law, and City
policies applicable to all other City employees; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Commission recognizes the work of past and present Fire Civil Service
Commissions;
116
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the St. Louis Park Charter Commission
recommends that the City Council take all steps necessary to:
Petition the State Legislature to pass legislation allowing cities to abolish Fire Civil Service
Commissions by unanimous vote of respective city councils.
Seek citizen input on matters of fire-related citizen concern.
The following section to be added at the end of the report:
Testifiers
The following people provided testimony (in the order shown) to the Charter Commission:
Jim Lanenberg, Police Civil Service Commissioner
Joel Jamnick, City Attorney
Roger Israel, Former Fire Civil Service Commissioner
Darcel Lewis, Former Police Civil Service Commissioner
Linda Trummer, Police Civil Service Commissioner
David Lee, Fire Civil Service Commissioner
David Smith, President of Police/Patrol Union
Paul Steinhilber, President of Fire Union
John Luse, Police Chief
Bob Gill, Fire Chief
Nancy Gohman, Manager of Human Resources
Charlie Meyer, City Manager
Jim Brimeyer, City Councilmember
Sue Sanger, City Councilmember
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
V. New Legislation on Purchasing
Staff Liaison Pires indicated that this item needed to be continued to the November 8 meeting to
allow focus on the Civil Service Commission issue.
VI. Meeting Schedule
The Commission agreed to hold regular meetings on November 8, January 10, February 21, and
March 14.
117
VII. Other Business
Updates to the Commission roster regarding new area codes were requested and recorded by Mr.
Pires.
VIII. Adjournment
As there was no other business, at 8:55 p.m., Commissioner Moga moved and Commissioner
Ahrens seconded adjournment. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Clint Pires
Staff Liaison
118
Consent Item 7d
November 9, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1000 FRIENDS OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 102.50
ACTION STUMP REMOVAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
878.63
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,791.67
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.00
APCO, INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 98.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 474.95
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,351.80
AT&T TELEPHONE 3.28
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEEKS PIZZA GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.15
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 265.35
BREITENBUCHER, DAVID OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 160.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CANNON, LAUREL SPECIAL PROGRAMS 23.00
CARMAZON, DAVID INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 401.25
CHEYENNE SOFTWARE OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.80
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84
COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 58.64
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV
CO
EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 751.89
CONSTRUCTION FASTENING
SYSTEMS
GENERAL SUPPLIES 318.72
CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.58
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 271.03
DARNELL, STEVEN ELECTRICAL 70.00
DELI DOUBLE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 858.00
DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,467.52
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 85.43
E M S LOGCON INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.00
EDTECH EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 240.00
ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,201.11
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION &
MAIN
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 20,943.49
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.86
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
11,870.49
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.45
ENVIRONMENTAL MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 15.00
ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 245.00
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 26.51
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FASTENAL COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 109.39
GARELICK STEEL CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 582.08
119
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GMDCA GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.83
GODBOUT, ANDREA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 83.70
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 484.61
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 176.65
HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 110,230.32
HAYDEN, CHRISTOPHER & AMY TREE MAINTENANCE 47.71
HENDRICKS, FRANK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 3,521.58
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.12
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.80
I C B O GENERAL SUPPLIES 208.75
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 144.52
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 628.98
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 193.83
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 281.54
JEANE THORNE INC. SALARIES - TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES
608.96
JEREMIAH, JANET TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 342.70
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 620.19
K C GROVES TREE EXPERTS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
234.30
KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 21,454.80
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES (181.05)
KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 586.50
KENNETZ, DON SPECIAL PROGRAMS 23.00
KEYS WELL DRILLING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 15,483.00
KRM INFORMATION SERVICES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 140.00
LAKE MINNETONKA ATHLETIC
ASSOC
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00
LARSON SPORTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 105.00
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,248.50
LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 8,826.00
LUSE, JOHN OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.19
LUSTY, PAULA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 43.55
M A U M A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 30.00
MASTER ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL 434.00
MCCALLUM, JEFF INSPECTION-COMMERCIAL 100.00
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 187.00
MENARDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 62.61
METRO CHIEF OFFICERS ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 330.00
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 123.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 272.74
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,171.35
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.15
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 5,791.71
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 167.83
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MRPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,030.00
NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 293.84
120
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (766.08)
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 55.00
NORTHERN LIGHTS TRAVEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 199.00
NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 186.54
NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA NA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 695.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 3,794.49
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 482.84
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 213.20
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 41.50
PETERSON, GARY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.00
PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 428.64
PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 150.00
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 126.88
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,346.42
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 29.26
RLK-KUUSISTO LTD ENGINEERING SERVICES 132.53
ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 413.50
ROCKHURST COLLEGE CONT EDUC
CT
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 207.00
RONGLIEN, LARRY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 161.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHWEICH, DAVID CONSTRUCTION BUILDING 66.60
SEVERN TRENT LABORATORIES,
INC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,540.00
SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,728.86
SIGN ART CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3.00
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,231.18
SKYLINE PUBLISHING COMPANY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 195.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SOUTH SIDE ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL 102.62
SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 21.62
ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 133.50
STEFONOWICZ, JODY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 198.00
STEMMER, LUKE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 151.13
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.80
SULZLE, JANE MARIE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 23.00
SWANSON & YOUNGDALE, INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,303.25
SWARTOUT, JOE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 23.00
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.30
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,218.00
THOMAS & SONS CONST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112,688.77
TI-ZACK CONCRETE INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 54,121.69
TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE EQUIPMENT PARTS 92.39
TRANE PARTS CENTER EQUIPMENT PARTS 435.26
TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 470.99
TWIN CITIES ANESTHESIA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 175.00
TWIN CITY SEED CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 298.20
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
MEETING EXPENSE 48.38
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 6,136.30
121
UNITED RENTALS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 178.39
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,405.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 75.00
US WEST TELEPHONE 1,144.31
VAC SERVICE CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 52.13
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 493.50
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
494.90
VIKING BLINDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,500.87
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 62.30
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
147,438.49
WATKINS, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,448.75
YOUNGREN, JULIE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 25.20
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 68.96
603,106.43
November 17, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A B DICK CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 298.77
AARDVARK BALLOONS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.60
AHRENS, CYNTHIA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110.50
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 573.02
ALMSTED'S NEW MARKET GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.76
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE ACCIDENT REPORTS 2.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,061.26
ANDERSON, ALBERT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 139.50
ANDERSON, DELORES A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 132.50
ANDERSON, MARY M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.06
ANDREASEN, RUBY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30.88
ANGELL, MARY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.25
AQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 479.25
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 853.58
ASKEGAARD,DELL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 54.32
AUNE, KIMBERLY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 197.50
BACH, LOREN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.25
BACHMANS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 101.13
BAGLOO, IRA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
BAKER, RUTH S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 125.50
BARBO, BARBARA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.13
BARRETT, CHRISSY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BAUMGARTEN, DAVID PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
BEEGHLY, GRACE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
BELL, DOROTHY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
BERG, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 197.49
BERGSTEN, PAUL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
122
BERLIN, NANCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 197.75
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BERTHENE, SANDRA MAY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 143.00
BERTHIAUME, MISSY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 39.00
BIRNO, RICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 165.81
BJELDE, HELEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 217.75
BJORAKER, ERIK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
BKBM ENGINEERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,564.18
BLEECKER, ARLENE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66.63
BLOOM, JANICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.38
BLOOM, JON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 383.37
BOHN WELDING COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 21.62
BRATLAND, ROSEMOND L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.13
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 921.45
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROSE, DESIREE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
BROWN, CAROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
BROWN, JOSEPH P PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
BUNGERT, NICOLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
BURGLUND, GRACE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
BYRD, KATHLEEN M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
CAHILL, JAMES TREE REMOVAL 173.60
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,878.49
CARLSON, DONALD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
CAVALIER, KURT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CENTER COURT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
CENTER FOR ENERGY &
ENVIRONMEN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,252.96
CHIEF'S TOWING INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 200.00
CHRIS HINRICHS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.13
CHRISTENSEN, MARY LOU PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.13
CIPOLLONE, LUCILLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
CLAUS, PEARL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
CLAY, RYAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
CLEMENTS, DANIELLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 48.75
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,581.40
COMMUNITY ACTION FOR
SUBURBAN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,252.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONDON, DORA E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
CONROY, ROSEMARY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 175.00
COPERINE, KRISTEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.25
CORCORAN, MARGARET A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 199.25
CORNELIUS, JANE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
CORWIN, ARLENE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
COX, JOANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
CRONSTROMS HEATING & A/C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89.00
CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 282.23
DALSIN & SON INC, JOHN A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,168.00
123
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69.00
DEANE, BETTY ZIMMERMAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 128.25
DELL, ED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
DESENS, MARLYN & HELEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
DISRUD, EMMA B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
DORA, DEBORAH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29.25
DRAZAN, DANA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
DUFFY, MEGHANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
DULL, CAROLYN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
DUNBAR, MARY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
DUNBAR, STEVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
DWORAK, EMILY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
EAKINS, LILLA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71.50
EIDSON, JANE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74.75
ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE
IN
GENERAL SUPPLIES 210.00
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 958.65
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT PARTS 934.64
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.00
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
7,678.67
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.80
ENGWER, MELANIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
ERDAHL, KRISTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
EVERS, CAROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 406.25
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FIDERLEIN, BRIAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
FINNERUD, CHESTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.63
FISCHBEIN, MATT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
FLATTEN, ANNA J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
FLUGAUR, FLORENCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 125.38
FLUGAUR, LEANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 156.04
FREEMAN, DOROTHY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
GALLOB, ANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
GALLOB, RACHAEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
GARAMELLA, JASMINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 69.88
GARDNER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 123.00
GAUTHIER, ANDY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
GENDREAU, ROBERT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 318.50
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GLEEKEL, BARBARA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.25
GLOTTER, DAVID PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74.75
GODFREY, ANDREW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.18
GOLDSTEIN, BRUCE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
GORMLEY, MAUREEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
GRANNES, TONY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN
IN
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
56.80
GROSSCUP, MARIAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
124
GROVE, HENRY R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 269.00
GUSEK, MARY V PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 48.75
HAGEN, KRISTEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
HAHN, MICHAEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
HALEY, MADIGAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
HAMILTON, NATALIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
HANSSEN, LEE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56.88
HANTEN, ANNA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63.38
HARTMAN, MICHELLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
HASKVITZ, DOROTHY C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
HAUSAUER, ESTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
GROUP
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
1,993.38
HAWKINSON, EILEEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.25
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 220.00
HERMANS, SARAH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105.63
HIBBARD, CORY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52.00
HILGERS, PEGGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84.50
HILL, BERNICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.25
HILL, GERALDINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.25
HINDIN, ALEX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
HINES, CHRIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
HINZ, TODD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.38
HOLDEN, AGNES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.38
HOLTON, NICK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 280.95
HOPKINS, RYAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY LEGAL SERVICES 786.98
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.46
ICMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 615.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 569.63
INDELCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.61
INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 860.66
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 826.44
ISENBERG, WENDY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 87.75
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 168.28
JAMES, TIFFANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
JOHNSON, CAROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
JOHNSON, CAROL J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.50
JOHNSON, MILLIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66.63
JONES, JEANNE M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114.75
JUNTUNEN, JAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 386.25
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.08
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL
TECHNOLOGIES
EQUIPMENT PARTS 37.68
KAMMAN, ELIZABETH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
KARL, BETTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93.18
KARNITZ, ESTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150.00
KARVONEN, LOIS H PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 1,374.14
KAUFMAN, ANDREA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71.50
KEDL, ANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74.75
125
KEEDY, JOANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
KELLY, BRIAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
KEMP, RACHEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71.50
KIDSDANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.00
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 190.25
KILBER, MARIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 107.25
KLEIN, DANIEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.25
KLEINEMAN, ETHEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
KLM ENGINEERING INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 221.25
KNIGHT, KEVIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56.88
KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.48
KOBE, LOGENE R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.25
KOHAN, GEORGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 121.50
KOLBERG, EDMERE G PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
KORTS, HELDI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78.00
KRAINES, EVA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52.00
KRAMER, MAVIS R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
KRAMER, SARAH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
KRUEGER, NICOLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
KURTZ, J. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
KURTZ, KIRSTEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126.56
KUSNETZ, ROBERT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 164.70
LAIDERMAN, NESSA L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 153.50
LAIDERMAN, PHYLLIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
LAIRD, MARILYN W PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 56.88
LAPRAY, JAMI A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.13
LARSON, SHARON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 224.88
LAU, JERRY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.13
LINDBERG, EDNA S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.30
LITTLE, LUELLA M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
LOFTUS, JANICE MEETING EXPENSE 30.60
LUNDEEN, MARIAN E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
LYKKEN, LAURIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 35.75
MACKERETH, DAVID PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 58.50
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 348.03
MAIER, JOHN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 136.00
MAIER, JOHN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 134.25
MAKEPEACE, CAROLYN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
MARTENS, BRENDA R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 132.50
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 304.50
MAX, MARILYN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
MAYES, NANCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 108.88
MC CROSSAN INC, C S OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 149.14
MCGOWN, JOYCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
MELAND, CHRISTA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.53
MENGELKOCH, KATIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 117.60
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL
SE
SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 63,162.00
126
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 368.00
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 61.50
MEYERS, SALLY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.38
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,705.15
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE 15.49
MILESKI, MARY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
LICENSES/TAXES 25.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MOLDO, PENNY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 189.63
MONROE, MYRTLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
MOXHAM, FLORENCE F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110.50
MULLEN, ERIC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
MULVEHILL, PATRICK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
MUSZYNSKI, MARY ANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 264.00
NALEZNY, LOIS C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.38
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS (766.08)
NASH, LENORE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
NELSON, MABEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 124.88
NERHEIM, CONSTANCE J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
NORD, KARLA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
NORDSTROM, TIM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
NOVOTNEY, DOLORES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
NOYES, PATSY R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 677.64
OKONEK, COREY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37.38
OLSON, FERDA C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
OLSON, SHIRLEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 353.00
OTTERBLAD, P ATRICIA D PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111.38
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
OVERBEE, SARAH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
OZWOELD, SALLY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
PANNING, CRAIG TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,088.57
PEITSO, MAXINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 124.88
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 674.91
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE - POST-TAX 706.43
PETRIE, KEVIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52.00
PHILLIPS, TIM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
PLITMAN, FLORENCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
PLOOF, PATRICIA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 445.25
PLUMERI, MARGARET PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00
POLACH, JANET PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
POOLE, NILA F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
POST BOARD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00
POSZ, ALBERT C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126.56
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,658.04
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 126.00
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PRYOR, RACHEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52.00
QUANSTROM, MAVIS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
QUANTERRA INCORPORATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,650.00
127
QUILLING, SHIRLEY R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
R C SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 42.99
RAFSHOL, ARTHUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
278.08
RANELLE, MICHELLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 69.88
RASMUSSEN, RUTH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65.00
RAVENHORST, KRISTINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 231.42
RENTAL SERVICE CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,517.66
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.90
RHEINHART, ETHEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 138.38
RICE, MARIA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
ROBINS, SARI E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
ROGALLA, ANGELA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.25
ROSENKRANZ, NINA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 81.25
ROSS, LOUISE W PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 141.25
ROTHER, THOMAS K PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 48.75
RUBINSTEIN, ESTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.13
RUHL, BARBARA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.25
RUHL, PEARL A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
RYAN, COLIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
RYKS, MARGERY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 141.25
SAFETY-KLEEN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
191.46
SANTEE, HARRIET E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110.50
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 155.62
SAXL, SUSI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHLAIFER, DOLORES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 39.00
SCHOEN, LOUIS S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 146.50
SCHROEDER, VERNETTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 116.44
SEL MOR DISTR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123.19
SERRELL, JUDITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
SHARE, JOHN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46.20
SHIELDS, PHILIP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
SHORT, MEGHAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
SIEGLE, ANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.25
SILVER, EDWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
SIMONETTI, DOMINIC SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 49.50
SKELTON, BONNIE L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 102.38
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SMAIDA, DAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 399.85
SMITH, ALICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65.00
SMITH, SUE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
SOLUTIONS GROUP FALSE ALARM FEE 33.37
ST LOUIS PARK BASKETBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00
ST. LOUIS PARK TRANSPORTATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00
STALLING, GERALDINE H PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
STAPLETON, KRISTIN K PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 86.13
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 2,076.50
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 281.32
128
STEEGE, RICHARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114.75
STRAND, BARBARA INSPECTION-COMMERCIAL 100.00
STRAND, ROGER W PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 410.20
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,028.44
STULBERG, JEAN M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 141.25
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 124.00
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 986.76
SUN NEWSPAPERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 125.00
SWAN, BEVERLY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 179.00
SWANSON, ALMA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
T/C BUILDERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,353.00
TANGNEY, ALICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.75
TANICK, PAUL R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 102.38
TAPE, WILLIAM H PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228.00
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 114.23
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 588.00
THEISEN, RON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.38
TRANE PARTS CENTER EQUIPMENT PARTS 245.14
TURSICH, MISCHA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.13
TYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 94.57
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 141.12
VALENTINE, SUSAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.25
VAUGHAN, JOAN I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
VEIT & COMPANY MEETING EXPENSE 388.85
VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 195.00
VITALE, KRISTINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110.50
VOELKER, STACY M MEETING EXPENSE 70.30
VOET, RAYMOND A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.75
WADE, ANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65.00
WAGNER, CATHERINE L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 132.50
WALL, ANNE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.25
WALLENTINE, SANDRA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.25
WALWARK, SARAH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.25
WEINSTEIN, SHELDON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
WELCH, RITA M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
WELTER, DOROTHY M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 119.81
WESTERDAHL, WILLIAM A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 125.50
WESTPORT PROPERTIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 296.25
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 190.00
WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 4,227.60
WHEELER, MARY L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
WHITEMAN, SUSAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112.13
WILLIAMS, MICHAEL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 129.00
WINN, KIMESHA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61.75
WOHLRABE, LORI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78.00
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.11
WOOLSEY, JOYCE E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111.38
WORTHINGTON, CHARLES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68.25
YANARI, KIMI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
ZACKS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 332.71
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 161.17
129
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,590.87
ZIP PRINTING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 204.48
ZIPSORT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,033.08
223,997.15
130
Consent Item 7e
7e. Motion to accept report for filing
Background: Attached is the October 2000 financial report. The report outlines all funds of the
City. The General fund report contains a balance sheet as well as revenue and expenditures. All
other fund reports outline the revenues and expenditures for the month as well as year to date.
Property taxes are received in July and November each year. A better financial picture will be
presented in the November financial statements.
Attachments: October City financials
Prepared by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
131
Consent Item 7f
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 1, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM - FIRST FLOOR
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonette, Paul Carver, Ken Gothberg,
Dennis Morris, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Garelick, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of October 18, 2000
Mr. Morris moved approval of Minutes of October 18, 2000 and the motion passed on a
vote of 5-0 with Bissonette, Carver, Morris, Gothberg, and Velick voting in favor.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Request of Marshall Kieffer for:
Case No. 00-53-S – Preliminary and Final Plat – Kieffer’s Addition;
Case No. 00-54-VAR – Variances for reduced lot width and building setback; and
Subdivision Ordinance Variance for easements and sidewalks
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report. She stated that the area being
considered is triangular shaped lot just north of the railroad tracks and railroad
bridge, as well as two single family lots. The applicant is requesting a replat to
break off the back portions of the lot and sell them to the adjacent single family
home owners. Relative to the preliminary plat, when the City turned back most of
this parcel to the state, the City retained an additional 15 feet of right of way
along Virginia Avenue. When staff first reviewed the preliminary plat, they did
have some question as to whether that right of way was shown on the property.
The plat was revised in this area and the surveyor is representing that the plat is
now accurate with respect to that right of way and legal descriptions that are
recorded with the county. Other City staff have also reviewed the revised plat and
have not raised any concerns with this plat. The original routing of the plat to the
utility companies did not result in any objections or concerns with the plat as it
was proposed. However, the modifications necessitated that the revised plat be
routed to the utility companies. As of this date, no responses have been received.
132
Ms. Peterson stated that the applicant has requested approval of a preliminary and
final plat including variances to the subdivision ordinance for reduced sidewalks,
reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the requirements for a
Development Agreement; and variances to the zoning Ordinance for reduced lot
width and reduced building setbacks.
Ms. Peterson concluded that staff recommends approval of the variances to the
Zoning Ordinance for reduced lot width and reduced building setback; and
combined preliminary and final plat with variances to the Subdivision Ordinance
for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements and to waive the
requirement for a Development Agreement, subject to the conditions as
recommended by staff.
Chair Carver asked if the sheds on the map belonged to the homeowners who are
anticipated to purchase the two extra sections.
Ms. Peterson stated that this is the case and indicated that these homeowners
thought they owned the property all along.
Chair Carver asked where the bike path is going to be located relative to this plat.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the bike path is going to be located on the south side of
Victoria Ponds so it is not adjacent to the railroad in this location. She stated that
the City retained a 14 foot trail easement from Victoria Ponds on the south side of
the property to provide a smooth connection from the alignment to the southwest
and through the industrial properties.
The applicant was present and available for questions.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair
Carver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Morris asked what the status is of the proposed sale of these parcels to the
adjacent owners after the platting, because he would not want to make a
subdivision, have a deal fall through and have non-conforming lots sitting out
there that end up going back to tax forfeit.
Ms. Peterson stated that the owners of lot 1 and lot 2 are co-signers on this plat.
The portion of the Virginia Avenue lot that would be split off would be replatted
as parts of lot 1 and lot 2, not separate parcels, so no new or landlocked parcels
are being created.
Mr. Gothberg stated that during the sidewalk and trail discussions, Virginia
Avenue was identified as an ideal place for a major north south trail for
133
sidewalks, bicycles and good foot traffic. However, a major impediment is the
existing railroad bridge which we understand that the railroad is not ready to
revise at anytime in the near future, but hopefully will happen some day. He
stated he totally agrees with staff with just retaining the existing sidewalk.
Ms. Velick asked who is going to cover the cost of a new survey and dimensions
for lots 1 and 2.
Ms. Peterson stated that the preliminary plat takes care of the needed surveying.
Chair Carver asked if there is a fence between lots 1 and 2 and between lots 2 and
3.
Ms. Peterson stated there is a fence between lots 2 and 3, but not between lots 1
and 2.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of variances to the Zoning Ordinance
for reduced lot width and reduced building setback and recommended approval of
combined preliminary and final plat with variances to the Subdivision Ordinance
for reduced sidewalks, reduced perimeter lot easements, and to waive the
requirement for a Development Agreement, subject to conditions as
recommended by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Bissonette,
Carver, Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting in favor.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business - None
6. Communications
A. Park Commons Update
Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, presented a Park Commons
update. She stated that the Planning Commission received the last update on
September 6, 2000. She said that at that time there was a financial gap between 7
and 8 million dollars and the developer had a list of different plan items that they
were reviewing more closely to see if any of those could help close the gap.
Subsequent to that meeting, there was another neighborhood meeting on
September 19th where 30 people had a chance to review the same plans and
provide comments. She stated that most of the neighborhood comments are still
related to increased traffic and how density might affect that traffic. She indicated
that there were a couple of items that were related to the traffic issue which
included a large scale study of the entire Excelsior Boulevard corridor and
neighborhood cut through traffic issues on both sides of the corridor from
134
Highway 100 to France Avenue. BRW also was asked to take a more specific
look at the traffic impacts from the TOLD proposal. She stated that a traffic
analysis was completed as part of the EAW with a scenario that was developed by
Avalon Bay, but some things have changed since that time so we want to make
sure we are within the parameters of the traffic assumptions and results that came
out of the EAW study. She indicated that hopefully staff will have a draft of the
traffic study on November 15th, but will at least have some indications from the
traffic consultants who have already indicated that they do not foresee any
increased impacts from this proposal because, although the housing is a bit higher,
their retail is substantially lower. She stated that TOLD has been able to close the
gap to under 2 million dollars. They were looking at more detailed numbers and
means of closing that gap and they feel comfortable that they can do this. She
stated that, given the small size of the gap in relation to the project, staff and
Council were comfortable that it was a manageable size at this point and we can
all more forward.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the most substantial change to this plan from the draft
reviewed on September 6th has to do with the idea of concentrating density of
housing north of 38th Street. Previous plans showed more for-sale town homes.
She stated that the two buildings north of 38th Street in this plan are proposed to
be six stories in height, an increase from earlier plans. She stated that the
apartment buildings north of 38th Street are considered higher end apartments due
to views of the park and types of amenities they would have. TOLD feels that
they could rent those at higher rates which would be part of the means by which
they would close the gap. Those buildings would still have some ground floor
retail and service on the town green which would be corner units. She stated there
are 6,000 square foot restaurants on both corners at 38th Street and a 10,000
square foot daycare in the eastern building close to the park which is designated
as Phase I.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the other change that brought up the apartment numbers
are the buildings on the south side of 38th Street which are now back up to four
stories. All of these changes have brought the housing numbers up to a total of
692 units. There are also the 10 live-work units that are still shown on Excelsior
Boulevard near Monterey. Another big change is that there are now 20 for-sale
town homes shown on the south side of 38th Street to the far east and west of the
project near Quentin and Monterey. TOLD is still looking at using stacking to
potentially get more units there, but are assuming that these are 2 ½ story units
with walk-ups from 38th Street, direct access from 38th Street and underground
parking. TOLD gave the examples of the Coventry town homes in Edina or the
Summit Avenue town homes in St. Paul which would be similar to what is being
proposed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the new plan has some minor changes to the town green.
The previous plan had a variable width to the town green between Excelsior
Boulevard and 38th Street. They have straightened out the roadways and made it a
135
consistent width of 55 feet from curb to curb on that the section of the town green
south of 38th Street. However, north of 38th Street, the town green is only shown
as 35 feet wide from curb to curb. Angled parking is still being shown on the
plan. Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff has physically marked the width of the town
green and determined that the 35 foot width north of the 38th Street is not
acceptable. It would not be a comfortable space to sit in with traffic moving on
both sides. From a programming perspective, the width would not be adequate to
hold events. The 55 foot width is the bare minimum to be considered. She stated
that the plans are being revised to ensure a 55-60 foot minimum to the town green
north and south of 38th Street.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the office and retail development are quite consistent
with the plan shown on September 6th. She stated this plan did show Bally’s
redeveloping into a second level on the west side of the town green.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the basic feedback in reviewing the TOLD plans is that
many of the principles that were established for this project (compact mixed use,
public transit, pedestrian oriented) through the livable community principles and
Vision St. Louis Park are still in place. However, staff and Council are concerned
about building #9 in Phase I which is proposed to be 6 stories and how this
building would affect the Westmoreland Condominiums in terms of shading and
views. Staff has asked TOLD to submit a shading analysis to determine if there
would be negative impacts; and in fact it did, so this is being revised. There were
also concerns about height from the neighborhood on the south side of Excelsior
Boulevard and TOLD was asked to provide a site line analysis which determined
that these buildings were not visible from the neighborhood south of Excelsior
Boulevard since there were a number of other buildings that block the view. Staff
was also concerned that TOLD was not exceeding the overall density parameters
and providing adequate open space and this is being reviewed in detail.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the new plans show a density trade, in that, instead of a
uniform density throughout the project, there is a higher density on the north side
of 38th Street and a lower housing density on the south side of 38th Street. If this
continues to be the direction of the plan, this would be something that we would
need to address with the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is still some concern that there are not enough for-
sale units in the project and desires to get more market feedback that the for-sale
townhomes are in a good viable location. She stated that they are looking at
whether there is the viability for turning one of the apartment buildings on the
south side of 38th Street into what they are calling “town home flats”. The other
thing that the developer has told staff is that, for the buildings on the north side of
38th Street, they would construct them in such a manner that they could be
converted to condominiums in the future if there was a high demand.
136
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there has been a substantial change to the park edge. The
park edge road has encroached substantially on what is park today, which is a
staff concern. Staff has been working on this and determined that it appears to be
especially problematic on the west side of the site where the grades get steep very
quickly. On the east side it is more of a policy issue. There is a large flat area
there and one is far from the slope when you are on the trail, but we would
basically lose that entire flat area and redevelop the trail on the very edge of the
slope. While it may be marginally doable on the east side, we would lose a lot of
park and it does not look feasible on the west side. As a result, the developer is
looking at some substantial changes to correct that encroachment to make sure we
have a good viable park. TOLD has proposed in this plan that they would
relocate the park trail to the south side of the park edge road and that has been
deemed unacceptable because you would have to cross several roads on the trail
and would lose the character of the trail. She also stated that the angled parking
may be changed back to parallel parking. She stated that the angled parking
concept is still to be examined since there has been some concern with the safety
issues. We would need to address it as a variance to the subdivision ordinance,
which does not show a street configuration with angled parking, and there is a
zoning code issue that prevents backing into public streets.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that at Excelsior Boulevard and the town green, TOLD is
showing a wider center median so that the roadways do not come so close
together. Also, there are now pedestrian crossings at the atriums for the parking
garages mid way up the town green.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that overall the office did not change. The plan shows a
reduced amount of retail space, but staff is not concerned as long as there is a
viable active street level to accommodate the types of demands this project has.
She noted that staff has asked TOLD to provide as much flexibility as possible for
conversions in the future.
Ms. Jeremiah provided a handout to the Commission explaining some options that
have been considered to address the various concerns without making the gap
worse. Option A is the plan that Ms. Jeremiah just explained. TOLD looked at
Options B and C to reduce building heights, but this increased the gap which
would create some competition between the developer and the City for third party
funds. With Options B and C, they were not able to increase the width of the
town green or reduce the encroachment on the park. Council asked TOLD to
keep exploring both options outlined in Site Plan D and Site Plan E. These
options increased the height of the buildings north of 38th Street to 7 stories in
Option D and one 7 and one 8 story building in Option E. However, they
removed the tall wing of the building that created shading problems, and were
able to widen the town green and reduce the encroachment on the park with these
options. Ms. Jeremiah stated that there would not be a zoning problem with the
proposed heights, but it was more a problem of perception and if it is appropriate
for the site. She also explained the other options on page 3 of the handout that
137
may help close the gap, including a boutique office building at Excelsior
Boulevard and Monterey. She invited the commissioners to a special City
Council Study Session at 5:30 p.m. on November 6, 2000 where the developer
will provide an update on some of these issues. She indicated that the Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing on November 15, 2000 to discuss
modifying land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, adopting a
redevelopment concept plan and various zoning changes.
Mr. Morris questioned if the Commission was getting ahead of themselves in
making changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances before the
final plan is developed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff feels that they are at a point where Council and staff
generally feel comfortable with the development direction and are ready to get
into the formal public hearing process. They do not want to start discussing
details that are PUD oriented until formal public comments have been heard and it
is determined that the general Comprehensive Plan guidelines are appropriate.
Mr. Morris was concerned that the public would be more comfortable with an
adoption of a concept first and then changing the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
to match it. He recommended that the development be discussed first at the
public hearing and then what Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning
changes needed to be done.
Ms. Jeremiah stated she proposed that the Comprehensive Plan amendments be
looked at simultaneously with the redevelopment plan and land use designations.
Mr. Gothberg asked to see what the scope was in this most current plan compared
to what was in the original plan and Comprehensive Plan. He would also like to
see a plan showing all the green spaces in addition to the town green.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that she would obtain this information and provide a plan
showing open space.
Mr. Gothberg asked if all the parking is needed on the north side with the increase
of the apartments and less retail.
Ms. Velick asked if that parking was for the park area.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that she was reviewing the amount of parking needed for the
park’s main events and for overflow parking from the Rec Center with the Park
and Recreation Director.
Ms. Bissonette stated that she is disappointed with the decrease in the amount of
town green space.
138
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this is a substantial change, about a third of what was
originally anticipated, and that this feeling is shared by everyone. She explained
that the Comprehensive Plan currently shows a green space of 150 feet from curb
to curb and now we are talking 50-60 feet that needs to be addressed with a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. However, she said she and the Park & Rec
Director marked it on the site and feel it will be adequate for the uses envisioned.
She asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in taking a tour of the
site.
Mr. Morris requested an aerial photo overlay be available for review.
Ms. Jeremiah explained the linear space of the site and the opportunity for
programs.
Mr. Morris commented on Hopkins use of their streets for programs.
Ms. Bissonette stated it would be nice to see how the town green is aligned with
the rest of Wolfe Park.
Mr. Gothberg asked what the timeline is for the completion of the project.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the developer indicated they will be preparing a
preliminary PUD and plat plan and submit by the end of the year which the
Planning Commission will review in February or March, 2001. Construction
would start on Phase I in the spring, 2001; Phase II in fall, 2001; Phase III in
spring, 2002 and Phase IV in fall, 2002 or spring, 2003. She stated that the
detailed traffic study would be done before the Council acted on it, but
preliminary information would be available at the November 15th Planning
Commission meeting.
7. Miscellaneous: None
8. Adjournment
Chair Carver adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Prepared by: Janice Loftus
Shirley Olson Administrative Secretary
Recording Secretary