HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/12/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 4, 2000
7:30 p.m.
7:20 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of November 20, 2000
b. Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2000
c. Special Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2000
d. Study Session Minutes of November 27, 2000
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
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 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.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2. Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00 to
vacate a portion of West 24th Street (nka Stephens Drive) west of Utica Avenue as
2
requested by Novartis and originally approved as a part of the Novartis Addition,
adopt Ordinance, approve summary ordinance and authorize publication.
3. Motion to adopt a resolution amending final plat resolution and extending final plat
filing deadline for Novartis Addition to February 6, 2001.
4. Motion to designate Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder for one (1) Ice Resurfacing Machine and to authorize execution of a
purchase agreement with Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. in the amount of
$30,400.00.
5. Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 72-98
with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant services required to
implement the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) during year 2001.
6. Motion to approve resolution authorizing final payments for Ron Kassa
Construction, Inc. in the amount $ 19,598.25 and Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. in the
amount of $ 6,238.51:
7. Motion to approve a cost sharing agreement with Reilly Industries, Inc. whereby
both parties pay equally for additional groundwater monitoring required by the
state and federal governments.
8. Motion to approve the contract with Hennepin Parks to clear and remove snow
from the Southwest LRT trail through the City of St. Louis Park.
9. Motion to adopt resolution removing truck and axle load restrictions on specified
MSA routes.
10. Motion to amend Appendix A to Resolution No. 00-108 – Council Rules of
Procedure
11. Motion to accept the following for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of August 16, 2000
b. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve consent items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing for Transfer of Intoxicating Off-Sale Liquor License for Vic’s
Liquor located at 6316 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
Request for transfer of License from Abe A. Rocklin d/b/a “Vic’s Liquor” to Lua
Thi Kim Nguyen who will also do business as “Vic’s Liquor”.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the license.
5b. Public Hearing on the 2001 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy
3
The City is required to hold a public hearing each year on the proposed budget and
tax levy.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing.
5c. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
December 4, 2000 was set to continue the public hearing for competitive cable TV
franchises. Two applications have been received, one each from Everest
Connections Corporation (Everest) and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). This report
updates Council on the current status of negotiations and recommends continuing
the public hearing based on those negotiations.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue the public hearing to December 18, 2000.
5d. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan – Plan By Neighborhood Chapter –
Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing.
1) Motion to adopt a resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan relating to the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood to clarify that no redevelopment of single
family houses guided low density residential is proposed or
envisioned. This action is subject to Metropolitan Council
approval.
2) Motion to approve summary resolution and authorize
publication.
5e. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Redevelopment
Chapter to modify certain land use designations and redevelopment concept
plans for the Park Commons East area.
Case No. 00-59-CP
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use map and
Redevelopment Chapter contingent upon Metropolitan Council
approval. Motion to approve resolution summary and authorize
publication.
6. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
6a. Approval of 2001 Liquor License Renewals
Request of Council to approve year 2001 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off-
sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor and off-sale and on-sale 3.2%
4
malt liquor.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve renewal of licenses
6b. Approval of 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program
Request of Council to approve years 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program.
7. Requests and Communications from the Public
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
5
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 20, 2000
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:32 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); Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley);
Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Olson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of November 6, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 8, Paragraph 1, change “competed” to “committed”.
Page 12, Item 6j, Paragraph 4, change to “bringing Bridget Gothberg on to do
Organizational Development starting 1/1/01”.
Page 12, Item 6j, add the following paragraph “Councilmember Nelson agreed with
Councilmember Sanger’s comments about the legalities and tax implications of the
current contract that was before the Council, but thought that those difficulties were
probably able to be worked out and he was willing to support either approach”.
b. Study Session Special Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
c. Study Session Minutes of July 10, 2000
The minutes were approved with the following change.
Page 18, Item 5, Paragraph 1, change to “Councilmember Nelson felt that the City
should look at the process for bond applications and the criteria for the application itself
and ask for the opinion of the financial advisor. He stated that he would give some
examples to the City Manager.
6
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 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.
a. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the agenda. The motion passed 7-0
b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the following Consent Items. The motion passed 6-0.
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
5. Public Hearings
5a. 2001 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 1
Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator presented a brief staff report and
recommended approval.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
7
Mr. Merkley stated the representative from the Special Service District No. 1 was
unable to attend meeting. He indicated that all of the advisory board members were
very satisfied with what has happened so far.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve
resolution setting the 2001 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District
No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual charge to Hennepin County. The motion
passed 7-0.
5b. 2001 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 2
Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator presented a brief staff report and
recommended approval.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
David Payne, Al’s Liquor and President of Special Service District No. 2 was present
and commended the City and staff for their effort and commitment to the project.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve
resolution setting the 2001 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District
No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual charge to Hennepin County. The motion
passed 7-0.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
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
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report. She stated that because
staff believed that the seven findings have been met, staff was recommending approval
of a variance for reduced usable open space. The Planning Commission also
recommended the variance, but questioned if more could be done to reduce the
variance. If the Council desired, 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 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: Building heights may be increased to
25 stories which was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation, floor area ratio may be increased to 2.5, parking requirements may be
reduced by 15%.
8
Stephen Young, Young & Will Architects, 325 2nd Avenue North, Minneapolis, stated
that it was a balancing act to get density and have an appropriate amount of usable open
space. He stated that it was the intent of the developer to get a package deal with
Northwest so residents could use that facility if the tennis courts were eliminated. He
stated that the trees on the south side of the property were existing and wouldn’t
propose to remove them. He stated that the developer was willing to add the rooftop
open space. He stated that the developer was meeting the parking requirement and
believed that reducing the amount of parking in the long run would create a bigger
problem. He stated that he believed this was a quality project with an appropriate use
for the location and there was currently the market was good for rental property.
Hans Widmer, 1601 Alabama Avenue Space, stated that he agreed that there was need
for additional housing, but believed usable open space was a critical issue for the
neighborhood.
Councilmember Nelson asked if it was mathematically possible to have market size
rental units and stay within 20 stories.
Ms. Erickson stated that it was not.
Councilmember Nelson recommended that the Planning Commission review the issue
of having requirements that were impossible to be met. He asked if the developer was
going to ask for any additional reduction through the operation of the PUD ordinance.
He believed that this was a significant reduction of the City’s open space ordinance and
couldn’t support the variance. He stated that if the developer was going to request TIF
from the City, he would have additional concerns about what kind of project was being
approved.
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development, stated that develop would not be
able to ask for any additional reduction though the operation of the PUD. He stated that
staff had started some analysis and discussions about providing TIF to the developer,
but this was on hold until further analysis was done on the financial viability of the
project.
Joshua Aaron, President of Parkland Company, stated that he was in the process of
putting some information together staff about applying for TIF.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was favor of the type of project, but would not
support the proposal because of the following reasons. She was very concerned about
the lack of usable open space on this plan. She didn’t believe the criteria for a variance
had been satisfied and disagreed with the analysis on the variance criteria that
determined the recommendation from the Planning Commission. She stated that she
saw the issue of economic reasoning running through the staff analysis. She believed
that this plan needed to be sent back to the drawing board and reconfigured to include
additional open space to get closer to meeting the open space requirement.
Councilmember Santa clarified the location of the rooftop green space.
9
Councilmember Santa stated that she would have difficulty considering a variance to
reduce the amount of usable open space by the indicated amount.
Councilmember Latz questioned how open space from adjacent properties were
factored in and asked if there a concept of shared open space might allow the density
that was permitted in the district.
Ms. Erickson stated that the concept of shared open space has not been examined. She
stated that at this location there was a retention pond with open space to the south of the
property, but this was not factored in.
Councilmember Latz suggested that this open space be factored in, as well as proof of
parking.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he was concerned about the fact that the current
criteria allows this type of use, but produces the inability to meet the usable open space
requirement. He stated he was in favor of the project, but he did not believe this project
met the City’s criteria for TIF or tax abatement and should not be approved.
Councilmember Young stated that he was little concerned about the amount of usable
open space, but believed that an additional 40% usable open space per unit was
excessive. He agreed with the request to ask Planning Commission to review the open
space criteria. He agreed with Councilmember Brimeyer that he did not believe this
project met the City’s criteria for TIF or tax abatement and should not be approved.
Councilmember Nelson clarified that he would like the Planning Commission to review
the way that usable open space was counted. He stated that he was opposed to the
variance and would like to see something less than the 46% reduction of the usable
open space.
Mayor Jacobs clarified with staff that if the developer added the rooftop open space and
eliminated the tennis court to add green space these changes would reduce the variance
form a 46% reduction to a 39% reduction.
Councilmember Latz clarified with staff that if the 42,000 square feet of terraces and
private balconies were factored in that this would meet over 100% of the requirement.
The Council discussed the recommended additions, the possibility of including terraces,
private balconies and the use of adjacent open space.
Councilmember Sanger briefly reviewed the purpose of the open space requirement and
stated that she didn’t want to loose sight of this as the City re-looks at the question of
open space and ordinances.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to
approve the variance with the additions of rooftop open space and eliminate the tennis
court to add green space.
10
Mayor Jacobs stated that he would be abstaining from the vote because the Parkland
Company was a client of the company he was affiliated with, but has not discussed this
with the City Attorney.
Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that the issue of why Mayor Jacobs was abstaining
could come into play for the vote, but has not yet been determined.
Councilmember Brimeyer withdrew his motion.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to
continue the motion on the variance to the December 4, 2000 City Council Meeting.
The motion failed 3-3-1. Councilmember Jacobs abstained.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, direct
staff to prepare findings consistent with the denial of the variance. The motion failed on
a vote of 3-3-1. Councilmember Jacobs abstained.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz to approve the variance. The motion died for
lack of a second.
Stephen Young, Young & Will Architects stated that the developer was receiving the
message that there were issues that were creating difficulties is obtaining approval or
denial. He stated that the developer would be willing to withdraw the application
pending working further with staff to configure the plan.
Councilmember Latz confirmed with Mr. Scott that if an application were withdrawn
the developer would have to reapply and begin the whole process again.
Mr. Scott suggested that the developer simply waive the 60 day review time period and
then Council continue the issues indefinitely until modifications were completed.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the lack of a second was equivalent to denial of the
variance.
Mr. Scott stated that the majority of City Attorneys would say that if there was a motion
to approve that fails, then you have acted on the application within the required time
frame. He stated that there was nothing else you can do when you are in the situation of
a 3-3 split, but in this case there was an issue to be determined and there was the
potential to have 4 votes.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the developer would be required to wait 6 months to
apply for the variance.
Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that if the plan was basically the same basic footprint
with some variations of how they do some open space, he didn’t believe it would be
required to go back to the Planning Commission, but would be more discretionary with
the Council.
11
Stephen Young, Young & Will Architect, 325 2nd Avenue North, Minneapolis stated
that the developer agreed to waive the 60 day review time period, and stated the
developer would make modifications to the plan and improve the conditions of the
variance so that it wouldn’t have to go through the Planning Commission.
Tom Scott, City Attorney asked Mr. Young to confirm this agreement in writing.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
continue the variance request indefinitely with the agreement of the developer to waive
the 60 day review time period for the variance. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1.
Councilmember Jacobs abstained.
Joshua Aaron, Parkland Company agreed to waive the 60 day review time period for the
preliminary PUD.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
continue consideration of the preliminary PUD indefinitely with the agreement of the
developer to waive the 60 day review time period. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0-
1. Councilmember Jacobs abstained.
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.
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
adopt a resolution approving variances to the Zoning Ordinance for reduced lot widths
and reduced building setbacks. The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
adopt a resolution approving variances to the Zoning Ordinance for reduced lot widths
and reduced building setbacks. The motion passed 7-0.
6c. Park Commons TIF District
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, 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, adjusting date
for public hearing to January 16, 2000. The motion passed 7-0.
The City Manager indicated that the City Council meeting on December 18, 2000 would
start earlier about 6:45 p.m. because of the map amendment item on the agenda and that
residents would receive adequate notice.
12
6d. MSP Real Estate Subordination and Consent
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
authorize execution of the consent letter and the Real Estate Mortgage Subordination
Agreement. The motion passed 7-0.
6e. Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA, the
City, and TOLD Development Company
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, 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. The motion passed
7-0.
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions – None
8. Board and Committees
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to reappoint
Bill Gavzy to the Housing Authority for a Commission ending June 30, 2005. The motion
passed 7-0.
9. Communications
From the City Manager – Mr. Meyer indicated that the City has received a verbal
employment agreement with Bridget Gothberg and would be confirmed in the near future.
Mr. Meyer also noted the recent robbery in St. Louis Park and indicated that the City was
taking the issue very seriously and the Police Department was establishing a Task Force
with other municipalities to resolve this issue.
From the Mayor – None
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
13
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
November 13, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Finance
(Ms. McGann), Police Captain (Mr. Walker), Grounds and Natural Resources Manager (Mr.
Vaughan), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Charter Commission Study on Civil Service Commissions
Mr. Pires and members of the Charter Commission addressed the Council regarding the final
report prepared by the Charter Commission on the matter of Police and Fire Civil Service
Commissions. Mr. Pires commended the Charter Commission for conducting a thorough study
while acting as a fair and neutral third party.
Present at the meeting were Charter Commission members Dorothea Moga, Cynthia Ahrens,
Cheryl Ernst, Brian Fiderlein, Carol Walsh, and Chair George Beck.
Chair Beck described the process the Charter Commission used to reach their decision, stating
they had interviewed with past and present Commission members, City staff, City Attorney’s
office, union representatives, and a lobbyist from the League of Minnesota Cities. He reported
that the Charter Commission recommended the following actions: pursue State Legislation to
enable the abolishment of the Fire Civil Service Commission, abolish the Police Civil Service
Commission, and seek citizen input on matters of fire and police related concern. He indicated
that the Charter language changes would be required if Council chooses to abolish the Police and
Fire Civil Service Commissions. Council asked the Charter Commission to bring forward
proposed changes to the Charter.
Commissioner Moga wanted to be sure that citizen input would still continue to be part of the
hiring process for police and fire. Commissioner Ahrens felt that the Council, City
Administration and Human Resources should design a process for public input. Captain Walker
stated that citizen input was already a part of the process on all levels. Councilmember Nelson
agreed that citizen input was important but was hesitant to structure a board without a clear
mission.
Councilmember Sanger said she was pleased with the work the Charter Commission had done
and the outcome of their study. She asked how the Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions
were different than other City positions in their need for public input in the hiring process.
Commissioner Moga responded that Police and Fire Department employees are intimately
involved with the public in times of stress.
14
Mr. Pires stated that the Charter Commission had provided the Council with some flexibility in
this issue. He added that meaningful public input was also important in other processes, not only
for hiring of candidates. Mr. Meyer stated that the police department must reflect the community
and public’s input.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the next steps are to abolish the Fire Civil Service
Commission. Mr. Meyer replied that there are lobbying efforts that the City can undertake to
petition the State legislature to pass new legislation allowing Cities to abolish Fire Civil Service
Commissions.
2. Outdoor Ice Rink Maintenance
Mr. Vaughan indicated that maintenance on both Kilmer and Twin Lakes Ponds is very difficult
because of unstable ice conditions on open ponds. He added that Cedar Manor and Susan
Lindgren schools were no longer in need of rinks. Staff proposes to discontinue maintenance to
these four sites.
The issue was raised about complaints from would-be users of the rinks. Council agreed the
changes should be made to the snow removal plan and the issue should be looked at again in one
year.
3. City Auditor Contract
Ms. McGann stated that a request for proposals for audit services had been sent to eleven
Certified Public Accounting firms. The Audit Committee selected Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd.
as their recommendation to the Council. Council asked several questions regarding the firm.
Ms. McGann replied that the recommendation had been based on experience in critical areas
such as tax increment financing and the overall experience of the staff.
4. Short Term Railroad Blocking
Mr. Meyer stated that the City of Minnetonka has passed a resolution calling for St. Louis Park
and Hopkins to allow an amendment to the railroad blocking agreement. The amendment would
allow them to modify the terms of the agreement if there are adverse noise impacts on residents
who did not have those impacts prior to the blocking. Mr. Meyer added that discussion with the
Cities and neighbors can take place soon depending on Council direction.
Councilmember Santa felt they should meet with the neighbors. Mr. Meyer replied they would
go forward and then bring the issue back to Council.
5. Communications
Mr. Meyer discussed the selection of a lobbyist for the upcoming legislative year.
Councilmember Nelson wondered if staff had considered hiring a new financial planner. Mr.
Meyer replied that staff is very comfortable with Ehler’s & Associates and the service they
provide. Council agreed that they would like to have a philosophical discussion with Ehler’s
before attempting to consider hiring a new financial planner.
15
Council inquired about the process and timelines for redistricting ward and precinct boundaries.
Staff replied that redistricting is scheduled to take place following the next legislative session,
but timeline is dependent on whether the legislature is able reach a concensus regarding
legislative lines. Following the legislative process, County and City boundaries can be
determined.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
16
Item # 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 20, 2000
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
2. Roll Call
The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Jeff Jacobs, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Robert Young.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer) and Finance Director (Ms. McGann).
3. Public Hearing
a. Public Hearing on the Levying of Assessments for Delinquent Fees and Chargers
Jean McGann, Finance Director presented a staff report. She stated that the Cit y has
received four requests for Public Hearings and all have been resolved prior to the
meeting.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Gerald Sandstrom stated that he owns the property at 3396 Library Lane. He stated that
one of his commercial renters was charged for two false alarms in 1998 who has gone
out of business and now he was being pursued to pay the bill.
Ms. McGann indicated that according to State Statute, the City was allowed to attach a
false alarm fee to the property owner if a tenant does not pay. Ms. McGann stated that
she would be willing to pursue this issue and work out a solution.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger asked how and if the all of the 1,400 cases were resolved.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that about 800 were being certified at this time, some
have made payment after receiving notification and more payments were expected to be
received this week.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the penalty for not paying bill was.
Ms. McGann explained that there was a 10% interest penalty added to the account if the
bill is not paid on time.
17
Councilmember Sanger believed that the number of delinquent City utility charges and
other fees was high and recommended that the City strengthen their collection efforts.
Ms. McGann stated that the penalties and interest charged on the accounts would be
evaluated as part of the rectification process in the future.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and charges. The
motion passed 6-0.
4. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
18
Item #3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
November 27, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Susan Sanger, and Sue
Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Public Art in St. Louis Park
Mr. Harmening explained that Council had requested staff to research the possibility of public art
in St. Louis Park. He introduced Jack Becker of FORECAST Public Artworks, explaining that
FORECAST is a company that assists cities and other agencies with public art initiatives.
Mr. Becker commented that there are many uses, venues, and inspirations for public art. He
shared a copy of a public art magazine and a series of slides depicting art from around the
country. Mr. Becker informed them that FORECAST also does consultation work and can
provide sample documents and information for government entities. They also can provide ideas
for the funding and staffing for such an initiative.
Ms. Carol Hampshire, Friends of the Arts member, indicated they were excited about the
prospect for public art in St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Latz inquired about the fees FORECAST may charge for consultation services.
Mr. Becker replied that fees vary depending on the services needed.
Mr. Meyer stated that the possibilities and resources to have public art in St. Louis Park are
great; however, staff expertise in that area is lacking.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked about the experience and resources available to FORECAST.
He urged the Council to move forward with this idea, stating they must define what they would
like to see in terms of public art and the options that go with it.
Councilmember Sanger asked how well an ordinance requirement for a certain percentage of a
development’s financing to be dedicated towards public would be received by developers. Mr.
Becker responded that it had been well received where there were already strong public art
programs in place. Councilmember Sanger then asked if FORECAST does work in architectural
design. Mr. Becker responded that they do not do much in that area but he has seen the value in
a Los Angeles type program that includes artists in the design team from the beginning.
Councilmember Santa wanted to know if there had been any failures in attempts to initiate such a
program. Mr. Becker stated that sometimes funding is a problem and that committee
19
involvement in the process can sometimes produce a mediocre art effect. He added that good
public art is often controversial.
Mr. Harmening inquired about general costs of a public art initiative. Mr. Becker replied that it
all depends on the scale of the project.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Becker to address the issue of governance of a public art initiative, perhaps
a board or committee. Mr. Becker stated that the process could be problematic and often
presents both opportunities and challenges.
Councilmember Latz suggested hat a scope of work be reviewed at a future study session.
Councilmember Brimeyer added that he would also like to see a list of expected outcomes. Mr.
Becker stated that he would include short and long-term proposals to take advantage of
impending developments.
2. Oak Park Task Force Recommendations
(Mayor Jacobs arrived.)
Barry Warner of Hennepin Parks was present at the meeting. He commented that Mr. Becker
and FORECAST had done an outstanding job in bridging the gap to get projects completed.
Mr. Warner showed the group pictures of the existing condition of the Oak Park Village site. He
showed the current site layout, the contamination of the site, the concept plan that was being
considered, and the proposed plan.
Mayor Jacobs said that Councilmember Nelson indicated that he had liked the plan as it was
being proposed. Councilmember Sanger inquired about the soccer association’s input on the
project. Ms. Walsh said that, as with all stakeholder groups, some compromises had been made.
Councilmember Latz asked if staff had received feedback from any other people who had
interest in the site. Ms. Walsh replied that she had also spoken with the representative of the
Baseball Association and compromises had been made there as well.
Councilmember Santa stated that she had heard some of the following complaints from the
constituents in that area: parking accommodations, influence on pond wildlife, the disruption
from lighted fields, litter, and drainage concerns. Council discussed the possible options for
lights and other issues if games run later into the evening.
Councilmember Sanger would like to see lighted trails. Other members of the Council felt that
light poles and standards may be intrusive on open space and actually hinder use of the site.
Mr. Meyer inquired if the money estimates included buildings. Mr. Warner replied they did not
due to the fact that no design has been settled yet.
Council discussed the timing of construction and the money for the project. They agreed the
concept plan should be brought to the December 18th Council meeting.
The Council agreed that the Oak Park Village Task Force had done an excellent job.
20
3. MSA Street Revisions, Load Limits, and Restrictions
Mr. Rardin presented the proposed MSA route revisions to Council. He stated that these
revisions had not been made in order to coordinate it with the integration of the Trails and
Sidewalks system. The proposed revisions are anticipated to go to Council in December.
Mr. Rardin explained that currently there are several measures in place that restrict truck traffic
on MSA Routes. MSA has recently indicated that some of these measures are not acceptable and
Mr. Rardin would like to obtain direction from Council on the possible options to remove these
restrictions.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her concern about 26th St W and the cut through truck traffic
that was present there.
4. Communications
Mr. Latz reported that Mayor Jacobs had been late to the meeting because both Mayor Jacobs
and Mark Schwartz had been honored at the School Board meeting earlier that evening. Both
had received an award from the Community Education Association of Minnesota and were being
recognized for that achievement by the School Board.
Mr. Meyer updated the Council on upcoming neighborhood meetings.
Council briefly discussed the Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities program.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
21
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of December 4, 2000
5a. Public Hearing for Transfer of Intoxicating Off-Sale Liquor License for Vic’s
Liquor located at 6316 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
Request for transfer of License from Abe A. Rocklin d/b/a “Vic’s Liquor” to Lua
Thi Kim Nguyen who will also do business as “Vic’s Liquor”.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the license.
Background:
The City received a request for a liquor license transfer for Vic’s Liquor, an off sale liquor store
located at 6316 Minnetonka Blvd in St. Louis Park. The store has been in existence since 1997
with Abe A. Rocklin identified as license holder.
The new applicant, Lua Thi Kim Nguyen, is proposing to do business under the same name and
has secured all necessary leases and purchase agreements to complete the transfer. Ms. Nguyen
is identified as sole owner and Store Manager. Ms. Nguyen has met all requirements for
licensure and has undergone a Police Investigation of her criminal and financial background.
Officer Phil Solvedt, the Investigating Officer, has prepared a complete investigative report
available for council review upon request. The report indicates no criminal acts or financial
conditions which would interfere with or give reason to deny the license.
Public Interest
Concerns about this transfer have been expressed by members of the public, but those concerns
relate primarily to the business dealings and financial interests of the current license holder and
the current Store Manager. Discussions with the applicant, current Store Manager and property
owner indicate that those concerns in no way impact the applicant and therefore should not
interfere with granting of this license.
The hearing for this transfer was originally scheduled for November 20th, but was postponed at
the request of the applicant to allow time for finalizing agreements related to sale of the business.
Notice was again published with tonight’s hearing dates and interested parties have been notified
directly of the new meeting date.
22
Effective Date of Transfer
Following Council approval, Ms. Nguyen’s application will be forwarded to the MN Department
of Public Safety, Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division for consideration. Effective date
of the actual transfer will be determined as a result of the state approval process.
This license transfer is being considered at the same meeting as Liquor License renewals.
Because the date of the actual transfer is as yet uncertain, staff will be recommending that
council move to approve the renewal of the existing license effective December 16th which will
allow for a smooth transition without a close of business should the actual transfer take place
after that date.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the Intoxicating Off-Sale Liquor License transfer contingent upon state
approval and close of business transaction.
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
23
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of December 4, 2000
5b. Public Hearing on the 2001 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy
The City is required to hold a public hearing each year on the proposed budget and
tax levy.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing.
Background:
State statutes require local governments to hold public hearings on their proposed budget and tax
levy for the new year.
Formal adoption of the 2001 budget and tax levy must occur at a meeting subsequent to the
public hearing date. If the public hearing cannot be completed at this Council meeting, the time
and date of the continuation hearing must be announced prior to closing the Public Hearing.
Staff does not anticipate this event occurring. Adoption of the 2001 budget is scheduled for the
meeting on December 18, 2000. Bound copies of the 2001 budget will be available at this time.
The format for the Truth in Taxation hearing is as follows;
Introductory Comments – Mayor
Overview of the City’s Budget – Director of Finance
Property Values and Trends - City Assessor
Public Comment
There have been no changes to the proposed budget since the August 29, 2000 Study Session. A
copy of the summary information from that meeting is attached.
Attachments: August 29, 2000 Study Session Item
General Fund summary of revenue and expenditures
Park and Recreation overview
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
24
EXCERPTS FROM STUDY SESSION REPORT
August 29, 2000
RE: 2001 Proposed Budget and 2000 Revised Budget
On the July 10, 2000 Study Session, Council reviewed the preliminary 2001 budget. At that
time, the preliminary General Fund budget was out of balance by approximately $575,000. Staff
has been reviewing all budgetary numbers and is now presenting a balanced budget.
The proposed budget includes the following revenue and expenditure assumptions:
Revenue
A 3% tax levy increase has been included in the General Operating budget
A 1% tax levy has been added to the Park Improvement Fund (see additional discussion later
in this memo)
The Water and Sewer Enterprise funds are incorporating a rate increase of 2%
The Refuse Enterprise fund rates will remain stable
The Storm Water Utility fund rates will remain stable.
Expenditures
The proposed budget is primarily a maintenance of services budget
New spending is limited to;
Organizational development
One part-time support staff in Finance,
A computer support position which is contingent upon receiving grant revenue
Budget Highlights by Fund Type:
General Fund:
The proposed 2001 General Fund show an increase over 2000 adopted budget of approximately
3.4%. This increase in revenue is due primarily to the recommended 3% tax levy increase.
During the Legislative session this year, levy limitations were allowed to sunset. This means
that for property taxes payable in 2001, there are no levy limits. The 2001 proposed budget has
been balanced using current revenues.
The net effect of the recommended tax levy increase is as follows:
25
Preliminary Estimate of the 2001 tax bill for the City of St. Louis Park Typical Home
Total City
Market Value Taxes Paid Taxes Paid
Year in which taxes paid - 2000 143,750$ 2,347 346
2001 Estimated - with 9% avg. increase
in Market Value 161,000$ 2,559 388
2001 compared to 2000 12.00%9.03%42$ The above illustration compares a home at a market value of $143,750 in 2000 and $161,000 in
2001. This is done because of the average 9% market value increase.
Special Revenue Funds:
The City has five (5) Special Revenue Funds. The Park and Recreation Fund primary revenue
sources are pool admissions, ice rental, programming activities and facilities rental. This fund
also receives a portion of property taxes.
Cable TV is also a Special Revenue Fund. This fund generates the majority of its revenue from
Franchise Fees. The purpose of this fund is to produce programming about City services, civic
events, local events and public meetings.
The City has two (2) Special Service Districts. For budget presentation purposes, the two
districts have been combined. The Special Service Districts were created by Special Legislation
to provide a wide range of services in Commercial Areas. Both Special Service Districts are
located along Excelsior Boulevard.
Housing Rehabilitation is another Special Revenue Fund. This fund receives revenue for
administrative fees from Private Activity Revenue Bonds. In 2000, two additional bonds were
sold for the benefit of Louisiana Court Project and Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. Together,
these bonds generate approximately $19,000 of additional revenue.
Community Development Block Grant is funded as a pass through from the State to the County.
These funds are used to eliminate urban deterioration.
Capital Project Funds:
Capital Project funds are established to account for the resources used for the acquisition or
construction of capital facilities except for facilities financed by the Enterprise Funds. The City
has several on-going Capital Project Funds.
The Municipal Building Fund exists to fund improvements within City buildings and facilities.
In 2000, the major expenditure is for the remodeling of the 3rd floor of City Hall. There are no
significant expenditures planned for 2001.
26
The Park Improvement Fund is used to account for the financing of land acquisition and
development of Parks. Revenues are provided primarily by the St. Louis Park School District
contribution and Property Tax revenue. The 2001 proposed budget includes a 1% property tax
levy dedicated specifically to Park Improvements. In addition, staff will be recommending that a
significant portion of the 1999 operating budget excess fund balance be transferred to this fund.
Further information will be provided at the Study Session.
Enterprise Funds:
There are now four(4) Enterprise Funds established to account for the acquisition and operation
of Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Refuse. All funds are predominantly self-supporting
from user charges to the general public.
The Water and Sanitary Sewer funds have no significant changes planned for 2001. A 2%
service charge increase is being recommended to account for the increased operations costs.
This 2% increase will affect the average resident by $1.34 per year.
The Storm Water Utility was created in 2000 in order to maintain the storm water facilities. This
fund will undertake significant capital projects both in 2000 and 2001. These capital projects are
related to flood zone areas.
The Refuse Fund accounts for municipal solid waste. This service is provided on a contract
basis. There are no rate changes proposed for 2001.
Internal Service Funds:
Internal Service funds are established to account for the financing of goods and services provided
to various City departments on a cost reimbursement basis.
The Municipal Service Center maintains equipment for all departments of the City. The costs
are billed to individual departments as rental charges for individual equipment units. Actual
costs include depreciation on the machinery and equipment used to provide the service. There
are no significant changes from the 2000 to proposed 2001 budget.
The Equipment Replacement Fund is used to account for the purchase and replacement of the
City’s equipment. Cost of the equipment will be recovered by charging using departments a user
fee throughout the equipment’s useful life.
The Technology Replacement Fund was established in 2000 to replace hardware, software and
account for network upgrades. A major equipment replacement is scheduled for 2002. Staff will
be recommending that a portion of the 1999 operating budget excess fund balance be placed in
this fund. Further discussion regarding a regular funding source and scope of technology to be
funded is necessary.
27
The Employee Benefits Fund and the Uninsured Loss Fund are also internal service funds.
Budgets are in the process of being prepared for these funds and will be presented at the
September 5, 2000 Council meeting. The Employee Benefits Fund accounts for the cost of
providing benefits to employees. The Uninsured Loss Fund provides funds for major losses
incurred which exceed current insurance policy limits.
Other:
Additional information related to how the budget was balanced, status of the Park Improvement
Fund and the recommended allocation of the 1999 excess fund balance will be presented at the
meeting.
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Item # 5c
Meeting of December 4, 2000
5c. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
December 4, 2000 was set to continue the public hearing for competitive cable TV
franchises. Two applications have been received, one each from Everest
Connections Corporation (Everest) and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). This report
updates Council on the current status of negotiations and recommends continuing
the public hearing based on those negotiations.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue the public hearing to December 18, 2000.
Purpose of Report
To brief Council of reports received and company responses pending.
Background
On November 15, 2000 the City received Creighton, Bradley and Guzzetta’s report analyzing
the technical, legal and financial ability of Everest based on their application.
On November 17, 2000 the City received Moss and Barnett’s report analyzing the technical,
legal and financial ability of Everest and Wide Open West based on their application.
City has not received any further responses from WOW except a short November 15, 2000
email that a response is forthcoming.
City correspondence of November 14 to Everest’s Counsel Jane Bremer stating that
remaining franchise ordinance items are:
1) Exhibits A-D, which describe cable system electronics, Local Origination inventory,
free cable service and Institutional Network sites and a public relations plan during the
rebuild.
2) Institutional Network Proposal
3) Local Origination Proposal
There has been no further progress on these areas because Everest has been occupied with
deadline commitments in other franchising communities. City staff desires to provide Everest
with adequate time to respond to remaining franchise items, and Everest plans to do that in time
for the December 18 Council meeting. Staff has not prepared an analysis of the reports on
Everest and Wide Open West yet but expects to do so for the Telecommunications Commission
meeting of December 7.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council continue this public hearing to December 18, 2000.
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5d
Meeting of December 4, 2000
5d. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan – Plan By Neighborhood Chapter –
Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing.
1) Motion to adopt a resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan relating to the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood to clarify that no redevelopment of single
family houses guided low density residential is proposed or
envisioned. This action is subject to Metropolitan Council
approval.
2) Motion to approve summary resolution and authorize
publication.
Background:
During a meeting with Minikahda Vista neighborhood representatives on May 30, 2000, City
staff became aware that there is some concern of residents on the north side of Vallacher Avenue
that their single-family homes might be redeveloped in the future. Vallacher Avenue runs
parallel to and one block south of Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to Lynn Avenue.
The homes on the north side of Vallacher are adjacent to commercial properties on the south side
of Excelsior Boulevard.
The single-family homes on Vallacher Avenue continue to be guided in the Comprehens ive Plan
land use map as low-density residential, and they are zoned “R-2” Single-Family Residential.
This is the same guiding and zoning as most of the single-family homes in Minikahda Vista as
well as the Browndale neighborhood (west of Wooddale). Redev elopment of single-family
homes that are guided low-density residential was not envisioned as part of any long-term
redevelopment concept plans. The Park Commons Concept Plan that is adopted in the
Redevelopment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan shows retention of those single-family
homes.
The Minikahda Vista Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan does not directly state
that no redevelopment of single-family homes guided low-density residential is envisioned. The
Browndale Neighborhood section is clearer in stating “No expansion of commercial
development into the residential area is proposed.” That text appears under a heading called
“Specific Development Guidelines”. Similar language could be added to the Specific
Development Guidelines for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment:
Staff recommends adding the underlined language to the Minikahda Vista “Specific
Development Guidelines” text in the Plan By Neighborhood Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
30
Specific Development Guidelines:
Redevelopment within the Park Commons area is subject to requirements of the
Redevelopment Plan. In the remaining commercial areas, restaurants with liquor
are prohibited as are car washes, outside storage and sales, and sim ilar heavier
commercial uses. Building heights on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard are
generally limited to 35 feet. No redevelopment of single-family homes guided as
low-density residential is proposed or envisioned.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 2000 and recommended
approval of the amendment on a vote of 6-0 with all members in attendance voting in favor.
Analysis:
The proposed language precludes both commercial redevelopment as well as higher-density
residential redevelopment of single-family homes that are guided low-density residential. There
are a few single-family homes that directly abut Excelsior Boulevard between Inglewood and
Glenhurst that are currently guided medium-density residential and zoned “R-3” Two-Family
Residential. The proposed language would not affect these homes.
Attachments:
Map
Proposed resolution
Proposed summary resolution
Prepared By: Thomas K. Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
RESOLUTION NO.00-152
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
PLAN BY NEIGHBORHOOD CHAPTER
MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on November 15, 2000, based
on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the
interests of citizens and public agencies;
32
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
The Minikahda Vista “Specific Development Guidelines” text in the Plan By Neighborhood
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to read as follows:
Specific Development Guidelines:
Redevelopment within the Park Commons area is subject to requirements of the
Redevelopment Plan. In the remaining commercial areas, restaurants with liquor
are prohibited as are car washes, outside storage and sales, and similar heavier
commercial uses. Building heights on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard are
generally limited to 35 feet. No redevelopment of single-family homes guided as
low-density residential is proposed or envisioned.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2000
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
00-58-cp/N/res/ord
Attest:
City Clerk
33
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 00-152
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
PLAN BY NEIGHBORHOOD CHAPTER
MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD
This resolution states that the Minikahda Vista “Specific Development Guidelines” text in the
Plan By Neighborhood Chapter of the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to
read as follows:
Specific Development Guidelines:
Redevelopment within the Park Commons area is subject to requirements of the
Redevelopment Plan. In the remaining commercial areas, restaurants with liquor
are prohibited as are car washes, outside storage and sales, and similar heavier
commercial uses. Building heights on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard are
generally limited to 35 feet. No redevelopment of single-family homes guided as
low-density residential is proposed or envisioned.
This resolution shall take effect after approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2000
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 13, 2000
00-58-sum/N/res/ord
34
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5e
Meeting of December 4, 2000
5e. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Redevelopment
Chapter to modify certain land use designations and redevelopment concept
plans for the Park Commons East area.
Case No. 00-59-CP
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use map and
Redevelopment Chapter contingent upon Metropolitan Council
approval. Motion to approve resolution summary and authorize
publication.
Background:
The City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000-2010, adopted in September of 1999,
includes proposed land use designations as well as a redevelopment concept plan for the Park
Commons East area. Park Commons East is about a 15-acre redevelopment site north of
Excelsior Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive. It does not include the
existing Wolfe Lake and Westmoreland Hills condominium properties.
Park Commons East is part of the 125-acre Park Commons area in the northeast quadrant of
Highway 100 and Excelsior Boulevard. Park Commons has been designated as the City’s future
“town center” based upon recommendations of “Vision St. Louis Park” and a subsequent
community design charrette. Goals for creating the town center include high-density mixed-use
development that is pedestrian and transit friendly, while still accommodating the automobile.
The adopted land use designations and redevelopment concept plan for Park Commons East
were prepared prior to considering plans by potential developers of the site. Therefore, it was
recognized that some amendments to the Comprehensive Plan might be necessary, and rezoning
to bring the properties into conformance with the 1999 adopted Comprehensive Plan
designations was not immediately commenced.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 2000 and recommended
approval of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on a vote of 6-0 with all members in
attendance voting in favor (see attached draft minutes).
Issues:
What amendments are proposed to the adopted land use designations?
What amendments are proposed to the Redevelopment Chapter?
Are the proposed heights and densities consistent with Livable Communities principles?
Is the anticipated traffic acceptable?
35
Analysis:
What amendments are proposed to the adopted land use designations?
Town Green Width and Placement:
The town green connection from Excelsior Boulevard to Wolfe Park has an adopted park
designation to reserve it as additional public open space (see attached Current Comprehensive
Plan Designations). The adopted width of the park designation is 150 feet based upon the 1996
charrette concept plan. That concept plan included a civic building within the town green, which
in part led to the recommendation for the 150 feet width. The Park Commons East Task Force,
which was convened after the charrette to make recommendations for the design of Wolfe Park
and the town green, devoted its efforts to Wolfe Park and did not discuss the proposed size of the
town green or its design in any detail. However, the task force did recommend against including
a civic building within the town green, and subsequent plans have all eliminated the civic
building.
The most recent redevelopment concept plan proposed by TOLD (see attached TOLD Overall
Development Plan) shows a town green width that is 56-60 feet from curb to curb. TOLD has
indicated that the 150 feet width led to a spacing between retail buildings that was not acceptable
to potential tenants, who want to encourage people to walk between buildings. The proposed 56-
60 feet town green width allows spacing between retail buildings of 165-180 feet, which is
considered about the maximum acceptable distance for retail customers.
The City’s Park and Recreation Director has reviewed the feasibility of including passive
recreation activities (walking, picnicking) as well as programmed activities (farmer’s markets,
art fairs) within a space that is approximately 56 feet in width and bounded by streets. The Park
and Recreation Director has determined that the proposed size will be adequate and comfortable
for most uses. However, large-scale events will likely require closing the adjacent roadways
north of 38th Street, so that the roads can also be used to accommodate booths and increased
pedestrian activity. This is feasible as long as the park edge road remains in the plans and
provides an alternate automobile and emergency vehicle route. TOLD’s redevelopment concept
plan retains the proposed park edge road. Therefore, the park designation for the town green is
proposed to be amended to a minimum width of 56 feet. It may be possible to widen it
somewhat in the future based upon exact approved widths of the adjacent roadways and
sidewalks.
TOLD has also proposed shifting the location of the town green. The adopted Comprehensive
Plan designation shows the town green to the west of the street right-of-way that is called
Natchez Avenue on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard (it is currently Ottawa Avenue on the
north side of Excelsior Boulevard but is expected to be renamed as part of the redevelopment
platting process). TOLD’s proposal shifts the town green to the east so that it is centered to the
north of the Natchez Avenue right-of way (see attached overlay of TOLD’s development plan on
airphoto). This accommodates TOLD’s proposed circulation plan to allow a full-service
intersection at Excelsior Boulevard, while maintaining one-way streets around the town green,
and allowing vehicles to circulate around the town green without exiting onto Excelsior
Boulevard. The traffic consultants reviewing the plan (BRW/URS) have made some initial
recommendations to modify the circulation plan to move the turn-around approximately 40 feet
36
north. This is currently being reviewed in more detail and may lead to some minor changes to
the town green. These details will be reviewed during the PUD process.
The shift in the proposed location of the town green and reduced size also leads to shifts in the
location of other adopted land use designations and the north-south right-of ways that separate
the designations. These are not discussed in detail but are shown on the proposed land use
designations map (see attached Proposed Comprehensive Plan designations).
Civic Mixed-Use to Commercial Mixed-Use:
The future development parcel to the west of the town green north of 38th Street has an adopted
land use designation of Civic-Mixed Use adjacent to the town green and High-Density
Residential further west. As noted, a civic building was originally envisioned to be on the town
green, but the Park Commons East Task Force recommended moving it to one side of the town
green. Therefore, it was incorporated into a Civic-Mixed Use designation and anticipated to be
developed along with some ground floor retail/service and housing above.
Recent improvements to the Recreation Center and Wolfe Park, including the addition of
community meeting and banquet rooms as well as the Wolfe Park pavilion building and shelters,
have accommodated the need for some additional civic gathering spaces. There is not currently
an identified community demand for substantial additional civic building space on the west side
of the town green, nor is there an identified funding source. However, there is expected to be a
“cop shop” somewhere within the redevelopment area. The developer is also pursuing a post
office customer facility. Although both of these are considered civic uses, they would require
relatively little space and could be accommodated in a Commercial-Mixed Use designation.
The Park Commons West Task Force recommended adoption of a Civic-Mixed Use designation
near the southwest edge of Wolfe Park in the area that is currently a surface parking lot for Park
Nicollet and the Wayside House. This area could accommodate a larger civic facility, such as an
art center, in association with other uses once future needs are better identified. Therefore, the
Civic-Mixed Use designation on the west side of the town green is proposed to be changed to
Commercial Mixed-Use. The High-Density Residential designation further west is proposed to
remain.
Right-of-Way to Commercial-Mixed Use and High-Density Residential:
On the east side of the town green just south of Wolfe Park, there was a single-family home
property that appeared to protrude into the park. The Wolfe Park Master Plan showed the park
edge road curving north in this area. However, when the home was removed, the park
designation was reconfigured to eliminate the curve and include the northern part of the old
single-family home property as designated park. A portion of the old single-family home
property is also shown on the current land use map as right-of-way for the future park edge road
without the curve shown in the Wolfe Park Plans. TOLD’s redevelopment plan proposes a shift
in the park edge road north in this area that is more consistent with the Wolfe Park Plan
developed by the Task Force. TOLD’s plan shows use of some of the designated park edge road
right-of-way for a proposed daycare/residential building and playground/courtyard open space.
It currently appears that the shift to the north is only about 25 feet compared to the current land
use designation map, and the proposed Commercial Mixed-Use and High-/Density Residential
designation would be entirely on previously developed private property. The exact location and
37
configuration of the park edge road north of the development parcel is still being refined. It is
conceptually shown at this time with parallel parking on both sides, which should be adequate to
help meet the park needs as well as some residential guest parking.
Commercial-Mixed Use to High-Density Residential:
The two blocks between Quentin Avenue and the town green on the south side of 38th Street are
currently guided entirely as Commercial-Mixed Use. TOLD’s proposed redevelopment plan
includes for-sale townhomes with condominium flats above and an apartment building
immediately south of 38th Street for about 1-1/2 blocks east of Quentin. This area is proposed to
be changed to High-Density Residential. However, TOLD’s plan retains Commercial-Mixed
Use on Excelsior Boulevard and also adjacent to the town green, so the land use designation in
those areas would not change.
There is also a small area of adopted Commercial-Mixed Use designation on the south side of
38th Street at Monterey Drive. This is also proposed to be changed to High-Density Residential
to accommodate for-sale townhomes with condominium flats above.
The adopted land use designations on the remainder of the two blocks east of the town green and
south of 38th Street are consistent with TOLD’s proposed redevelopment plan.
Right-of-Way Changes:
The Comprehensive Plan land use map is also proposed to be amended to show right-of-way
locations and configurations that are more consistent with TOLD’s redevelopment plan. As
noted, the right-of way will likely be revised somewhat during the PUD process as a result of
more detailed traffic analysis and consideration of pedestrian needs and park impacts. Therefore,
the Comprehensive Plan right-of-way locations and configurations should be considered a
general concept guide only.
What amendments are proposed to the Redevelopment Chapter?
Note on Wolfe Park & Town Green Drawing:
As noted, the “Wolfe Park & Town Green” drawing (Figure P-9) that was developed by the Park
Commons East/Wolfe Park Task Force includes a wider town green than that which is currently
proposed. Also, the design of the town green in that drawing was not the subject of much Task
Force consideration (other than removal of the civic building). Finally, as noted the park edge is
still being refined. It is therefore proposed that a note be added to the Wolfe Park & Town Green
drawing indicating that the town green width has been refined by the more recent redevelopment
plan and the town green and park edge design will be further refined through detailed
development plan (PUD) review.
Replacement of certain plan and image sketch drawings:
The Redevelopment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes a “Park Commons - Phase 1”
plan drawing (Figure P-5), “Park Commons – Phase 1” isometric drawing (Figure P-7) and “Park
Commons - Image Sketch” (Figure P-8). It is proposed that these drawings be replaced with the
following:
38
Park Commons East redevelopment concept plan (see attached TOLD Overall Development
Plan),
Park Commons East cross section concept (see attached TOLD north-south and east west
cross sections), and
Park Commons East image sketch (see attached TOLD perspective drawing of town green
and buildings).
It is further recommended that these drawings are refined prior to adoption to ensure that they
reflect the most current approximate mix of uses, town green width, and anticipated building
heights. For example, the plans should note that there will be ground floor retail/service in the
office buildings, and the building heights should be updated on the cross section and image
sketch to show 7 story buildings north of 38th Street. In addition, the cross-section currently
shows a 35 feet town green width north of 38th Street, which has since been revised to about 60
feet on the redevelopment plan. These corrections are expected to be available for Council
review during the December 4th meeting.
Notes on updated redevelopment concept plan:
It is proposed that the updated Park Commons East redevelopment concept plan include several
notes to help explain that it will be further refined and to specify certain modifications to
performance standards that may be adopted through PUD consideration.
Approximate Mix of Uses: The redevelopment concept plan notes should specify that the plan
envisions approximately 145,000 square feet of retail/service/restaurants, 115,000 square feet of
office, and 660 residential units, including rental and for-sale units. The office buildings will
include at least 50% ground floor retail/service (the approximate office and retail numbers
assume this change).
Daycare and Bally’s: The redevelopment concept plan notes should specify that the proposed
daycare could be considered a retail/service use for meeting ground floor mixed-use criteria,
since the daycare could be converted to a more active retail/service use in the future if demand
warrants and the daycare could be relocated. Similarly, the notes should specify that the Bally’s
fitness center (indoor entertainment) could be considered an office use for meeting upper story
mixed-use criteria, since the fitness center could be converted to office use in the future.
Density: The redevelopment concept plan notes should indicate that density should be
considered overall for the entire redevelopment plan rather than block by block or land use
designation by designation. Excluding the right-of-ways, town green, and park areas, the overall
residential density is approximately 58 units per acre, which is well within the High-Density
Residential and Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan guidelines of up to 75 units per acre. The High-
Density Residential designation notes that under a PUD, 75 units per acre may be developed if
within 1000 feet of a park, which is met in this area. The redevelopment plan notes should also
indicate that the Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Area ratio should be generally consistent
with the redevelopment concept plan and as specifically approved by PUD.
Height: The redevelopment concept plan should indicate that building heights should be 2-4
stories south of 38th Street and no more than 8 stories north of 38th Street. It should also note that
buildings over 4 stories in height should set back upper floors (providing a terraced, wedding
cake effect). Currently, the redevelopment concept plan includes the following heights south of
39
38th Street: a two-story commercial building on the west side of the town green, 3 story
retail/office buildings on Excelsior Boulevard near Quentin and Monterey, 4 story
retail/apartment buildings along the remainder of Excelsior Boulevard and the east side of the
town green, and 4 story residential buildings along the south side of 38th Street. The actual
heights of the buildings will vary due to the different floor to ceiling heights of retail, office, and
residential uses. This will provide interest and prevent an appearance that is too uniform. The
redevelopment concept plan includes building heights of up to 7 stories north of 38th Street.
There has been some interest in allowing the building west of the town green to be 8 stories as a
means of reducing the retail/residential buildings along Excelsior Boulevard to 3 stories.
However, the developer is not proposing this, and staff does not advocate it, due to the additional
impacts on the existing condominiums, and Livable Communities principles for including taller
buildings on wide streets such as Excelsior Boulevard to provide a sense of enclosure and traffic
calming (see Livable Communities analysis). The Comprehensive Plan High-Density
Residential designation notes that 3-4 story buildings will be appropriate in some areas, with 6-8
story buildings and even taller high-rises acceptable in others. Therefore, either scenario is
consistent with the High-Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Mixed-Use zoning
district gives additional density incentives if 50% or more of the buildings are 6 stories or more
in height. The proposed 2-4 story heights of the buildings in the Mixed Use designation areas
will not meet this criteria.
Access to Multiple-Family: The redevelopment concept plan should note that access to
residential units will be approved through the PUD process based upon more detailed
consideration.
Right-of-Way: As noted, some changes to the exact design of right-of-ways is expected based
upon more detailed traffic analysis, review of pedestrian needs, and park impact analysis. The
redevelopment concept plan should note that design of public right-of-ways, including exact
location and width of streets, on-street parking design, and width of boulevards and sidewalks
will be approved through the PUD and platting process based upon more detailed consideration.
Open Space: The redevelopment concept plan should note that open space should be generally
consistent with the redevelopment concept plan and as specifically approved by PUD and plat.
The town green and a portion of the old single-family home site that appeared to protrude into
Wolfe Park will likely be dedicated to the City as additional park land. The developer has
indicated that most of the open space shown as court yards for the apartment buildings will also
be available to the general public.
Building Setbacks: The redevelopment concept plan should note that building setbacks and
spacing should be generally consistent with the redevelopment concept plan and as specifically
approved by PUD. Buildings are shown close to streets with parking behind, which is consistent
with Livable Communities principles. In some instances, residential buildings may be closer
than 15 feet from the back of curb of internal private roadways or parking lots.
Landscaping and Bufferyards: The redevelopment concept plan should note that landscaping
and bufferyards will be as specifically approved through PUD.
Off-Street Parking: The redevelopment concept plan should note that parking should be
generally consistent with the redevelopment concept plan and as specifically approved by PUD.
It appears that Codes for parking can easily be met through the PUD process with ordinary
40
provisions for sharing between uses with different peaks and reductions allowed for transit, etc.
A detailed parking analysis will be part of the PUD review to ensure that there is adequate
parking for all uses.
Are the proposed heights and densities consistent with Livable Communities and other
Comprehensive Plan principles?
The Comprehensive Plan Redevelopment Chapter includes certain principles for the Park
Commons area as recommended by one of the Park Commons Task Forces. The Comprehensive
Plan also includes a Livable Communities Chapter that addresses design principles. The
Metropolitan Council has approved these components of St. Louis Park’s Comprehensive Plan as
well as the High-Density Residential and Mixed Use land use designations for 75 units per acre.
The Metropolitan Council also has certain guidelines and criteria for awarding Livable
Communities Demonstration Account grants. The Community Development Director of the
Metropolitan Council has indicated that additional points are awarded for projects that exceed 30
units per acre (see attached E-Mail from Caren Dewar). A representative of the Metropolitan
Council attended the Planning Commission public hearing to help answer questions and
confirmed that there is no upper limit to density.
Park Commons Principles:
The Redevelopment Chapter “principal redevelopment goals” for Park Commons include the
following principles related to density and height:
Strengthen the area as a major employment, shopping, living, and leisure area.
Intensify land use to create a compact, walkable town center.
Replace existing single story buildings with multi-story mixed-use buildings.
Link housing with job opportunities through provision of additional housing, creation of new job
opportunities, building connections, and transit links.
Create a town center whose architecture demonstrates pleasing proportions, displays quality
materials and detail, and is built to a human scale (see Livable Communities section for
explanation of human scale architecture).
Foster and stimulate economically sound private redevelopment (the developer has indicated that
a certain density is required to achieve economic viability).
Livable Communities Principles:
The Livable Communities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following principles
that help guide density and height:
Buildings must be sized in proportion to the width of the street. Low buildings do a poor job
of defining streets, especially wide streets. If the road is too wide, cars drive too fast.
Commercial buildings should be at least 2 stories high. The maximum ratio of building
height to street width is 1:6 (this would allow heights along Excelsior Boulevard of up to 450
feet and heights along 38th/39th Street of up to 140 feet, which are well in excess of anything
proposed).
41
Buildings should have a human scale. Taller buildings may be brought into human scale
by creating intimate details on the first floor and setting back upper stories (this is
proposed).
The Livable Communities Chapter also discusses density in relation to mixed-use development
as follows:
Mixed-use development means two or more uses are contained within the same building.
Residential mixed-use also means mixed-income housing, mixed types of housing on the
same block, and higher density development. There is a fear that high density means
congested streets. Actually, high density often results in reduced automobile traffic,
because higher densities can support local retail and services as well as transit, all of
which reduce dependence on the automobile.
Other Comprehensive Plan Policies:
As noted, the High- Density Residential and Mixed Use designations allow up to 75 units per
acre. The High-Density Residential designation also addresses appropriate building heights of 3-
4 stories, 6-8 stories, and taller high-rises. The Mixed Use designation does not specifically
mention building heights, but the associated Mixed Use zoning gives incentives for including a
majority of buildings that are 6 or more stories in height. The Mixed Use zoning district does
not include any height restrictions other than where buildings are close to one-and two-family
zoning districts, which does not apply in this case.
Is the anticipated traffic acceptable?
A traffic study was done by Parsons Barton-Aschman for an earlier redevelopment concept plan
prepared by AvalonBay and accepted as part of the EAW decision. A new traffic study is being
completed to ensure that the changes to the plan proposed by the new developer do not result in
additional traffic impacts that cannot readily be mitigated. Initial findings from the new Park
Commons East traffic study being prepared by BRW/URS indicate that there will be 391 fewer
p.m. peak trips from the TOLD plan as compared to the previous AvalonBay plan reviewed and
accepted for the EAW (see attached Draft Trip Comparison prepared by BRW/URS). Some of
the assumptions in the draft trip comparison (particularly additional trips from the relocated
Bally’s) suggest that the TOLD trips may even be estimated on the high side. Since the EAW
traffic level was already deemed acceptable, the TOLD plan is even more acceptable.
There is still concern from the neighborhood south of Excelsior Boulevard regarding existing
and future cut-through traffic and safety issues. This is being addressed through a broader study
(the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study) that is also underway. That study is not
directly related to TOLD’s development proposal, since it addresses existing issues as well as
issues that may arise from future development outside of the Park Commons East area.
However, the corridor study will also address any potential neighborhood impacts from the Park
Commons East area.
42
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation amendments and Redevelopment Chapter amendments (with the proposed revisions
to the concept drawings as described in the above analysis).
The Planning Commission also directed staff to continue analyzing traffic impacts and potential
mitigation for the neighborhood south of Excelsior Boulevard. This is underway as part of the
Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Proposed Summary Resolution
Draft, Unapproved Planning Commission Excerpts from 11/15/00 Public Hearing
E-Mail from Mike Sixel, Browndale Neighborhood President
E-Mail from Caren Dewar, Metropolitan Council
Letter from John McCain, Beltline Industrial Park
Draft Trip Generation Comparisons from BRW/URS
Current Comprehensive Plan Designations
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designations
Redevelopment Concept Plan Overlay on Airphoto
TOLD Overall Development Plan (Redevelopment Concept Plan)
TOLD Cross-Section Drawings
TOLD Image Sketch of Town Green Area
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
43
RESOLUTION NO. 00-153
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 T0 MODIFY CERTAIN LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS AND REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE PARK
COMMONS EAST AREA
East of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior Boulevard to the
southern portion of Wolfe Park
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
44
WHEREAS, changes to the concept redevelopment plans for the Park Commons East
area result in certain changes to the adopted land use designations and are consistent with other
provisions in the Comprehensive Plan such as Livable Communities principles, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park held a public hearing
and recommended adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on
November 15, 2000, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research
and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the changes to the concept redevelopment plans as compared to the EAW
plans do not affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects and a new EAW is
not required.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
1. Change the land use designations as shown on the attached map including:
a. reduction in the size of the Park designation for the future town green and
shift in its proposed location;
b. change from Civic Mixed-Use to Commercial Mixed-Use west of the
town green and north of 38th/39th Street;
c. changes from Commercial Mixed-Use to High-Density Residential east of
Quentin and west of Monterey Drive on the south side of 38th/39th Street;
d. change a portion of adopted right-of-way to Commercial Mixed-Use and
High-Density Residential south of Wolfe Park and east of the town green;
e. change certain street right-of-way locations that will be further refined
by detailed redevelopment plans.
2. Change the Redevelopment Chapter to adopt the following:
a. a new Figure P-5 to be titled “Park Commons East Redevelopment
Concept Plan” (attached Park Commons Overall Development Plan),
which will include the following text:
This plan for Park Commons East is a concept that will be refined by
detailed redevelopment plans through the PUD approval process. Office
buildings will include at least 50% ground floor retail/service/restaurants.
A mix of uses will be incorporated, including approximately 145,000 sq. ft
of retail/service/restaurants, 115,000 sq. ft. of office, and 660 residential
units, including rental and for-sale units. Density shall be considered
overall for the entire redevelopment plan rather than block-by-block or
land use designation-by-designation. Building heights south of 38th/39th
Street will generally be 2-4 stories, while building heights north of
38th/39th Street will generally be 6-8 stories. The actual heights of
buildings will vary, due to different floor to ceiling heights of different
uses. Buildings over 4 stories in height should set back upper floors. The
design of the park edge and town green will be further refined. The
45
following modifications to performance standards may be adopted through
PUD consideration:
Mixed-Use Criteria: Daycare can be considered a retail/service use for
meeting ground floor mixed-use criteria, and a fitness center (indoor
entertainment) can be considered an office use for meeting upper story
mixed-use criteria, since both can be converted in the future.
Access to Multiple-Family: Access to residential units will be approved
through the PUD process based upon more detailed consideration.
Right-of-Way: Design of public right-of-ways, including exact location
and width of streets, on-street parking design, and width of boulevards and
sidewalks will be approved through the PUD and platting process based
upon more detailed consideration.
Open Space: Open space should be generally consistent with the
redevelopment concept and as specifically approved by PUD and plat
based upon more detailed consideration.
FAR and GFAR: Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Area Ratio should
be generally consistent with the redevelopment concept plan and as
specifically approved by PUD based upon more detailed consideration.
Building Setbacks: Building setbacks, including distances for internal
private roadways and parking lots, should be generally consistent with the
redevelopment concept and as specifically approved by PUD based upon
more detailed consideration.
Landscaping and Bufferyards: Landscaping and bufferyards will be as
specifically approved by PUD based upon more detailed consideration.
Off-Street Parking: Parking should be generally consistent with the
redevelopment concept and as specifically approved by PUD based upon
more detailed consideration.
b. a new Figure P-7 to be titled “Park Commons East Redevelopment
Cross-Section Concept” (attached);
c. a new Figure P-8 to be titled “Park Commons East Redevelopment
Image Sketch (attached);
d. add the following text to Figure P-9 “Wolfe Park & Town Green”:
The town green width has been refined in concept by the Park Commons
East Redevelopment Plan. The town green and park edge will be further
refined through development plan review (PUD) based upon more detailed
consideration.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2000
46
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-59-CP/N/res/ord
City Clerk
47
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 00-153
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 T0 MODIFY CERTAIN LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS AND REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE PARK
COMMONS EAST AREA
East of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior Boulevard to the
southern portion of Wolfe Park
This resolution states that Comprehensive Plan for the City of St. Louis Park shall be amended as
follows:
1. Change certain land use designations for Park Commons East including a reduction in the
size of the Park designation for the future town green and shift in its proposed location, a
change from Civic Mixed-Use to Commercial Mixed-Use west of the town green and north
of 38th/39th Street, changes from Commercial Mixed-Use to High-Density Residential east of
Quentin and west of Monterey Drive on the south side of 38th/39th Street; change a portion of
adopted right-of-way to Commercial Mixed-Use and High-Density Residential south of
Wolfe Park and east of the town green, and change certain street right-of-way locations that
will be further refined by detailed redevelopment plans.
2. Change the Redevelopment Chapter to adopt a new Park Commons East
Redevelopment Concept Plan (Figure P-5), Park Commons East Redevelopment Cross-
Section Concept (Figure P-7), and Park Commons East Redevelopment Image Sketch
(Figure P-8) and to add notes to the Redevelopment Concept Plan and Wolfe Park &
Town Green drawing (Figure P-9) specifying that certain aspects will be further refined,
density will be considered overall for the redevelopment area, and certain performance
standards may be modified or waived.
This resolution shall take effect upon approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2000
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 13, 2000 00-59-sum/N/res/ord
48
EXCERPTS --- NOT APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 15, 2000
3. Public Hearings:
B. Case No. 00-59-CP – Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Land Use &
Redevelopment Plan to modify certain land use designations and the
redevelopment concept plan – Park Commons East area
Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, presented a staff report. She
stated that the City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000-2010, adopted in
September of 1999, includes proposed land use designations as well as a
redevelopment concept plan for the Park Commons east area. Park Commons
east is about a 15-acre redevelopment site north of Excelsior Boulevard between
Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive. It does not include the existing Wolfe Lake
and Westmoreland Hills condominium properties.
Mr. Jeremiah stated that Park Commons East is part of the 125-acre Park
Commons area in the northeast quadrant of Highway 100 and Excelsior
Boulevard. Park Commons has been designated as the City’s future “town
center” based upon recommendations of “Vision St. Louis Park” and a subsequent
community design charrette. She explained that the goals for creating the town
center include high-density mixed-use development that is pedestrian and transit
friendly, while still accommodating the automobile.
Ms. Jeremiah explained that the adopted land use designations and redevelopment
concept plan for Park Commons East were prepared prior to considering plans by
potential developers of the site. Therefore, it was recognized that some
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan might be necessary along with rezoning
to bring the properties into conformance with the 1999 adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. Jeremiah reviewed the updated plan for Park Commons. She explained the
amendments proposed to the adopted land use designations related to the town
green width and placement, civic mixed-use to commercial mixed-use; right-of-
way to commercial-mixed use and high-density residential; commercial-mixed
use to high-density residential. Ms. Jeremiah explained the amendments proposed
to the Redevelopment Chapter including a note on Wolfe Park & Town Green
Drawing, replacement of certain plan and image sketch drawings, and notes on
updated redevelopment concept plan. She explained that the proposed heights
and densities were consistent with Livable Communities and other
Comprehensive Plan principles and the anticipated traffic acceptable.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive
Plan land use designation amendments and Redevelopment Chapter amendments
with the proposed revisions as described in the analysis in the staff report. The
49
Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council,
which will hold an additional public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on
December 4, 2000. The Planning Commission recommendation will also be
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for approval.
Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council, stated that she was present to answer
questions about Met Council policies, process and involvement. She stated that
the Met Council has approved a Livable Communities grant that is a part of this
process and has endorsed this project in the past. She stated that the proposed
density and how this would be related to in a comp plan amendment was an issue
of interest to the Met Council. She stated that the one way Met Council looks at
density is in new land within the MUSA and preserving the rural and agricultural
open space. She stated that the proposed reduction in density (from 75 units per
acre to 58 units per acre) would still be a project that would be in the bonus points
in terms of the type of development that we would like to see move forward and it
is consistent with our philosophy with the redevelopment and direction in the
urban sprawl issue.
Mr. Timian asked what the bonus points are good for.
Ms. Hanson stated that criteria were put together for ranking projects in terms of
the livable community agenda and their goals. She stated that points were
awarded for different criteria, and one of them was density. The criteria related
that the density should be at least 7 to 30 units per acre. If there were more than
30 units per acre there was a bonus given to that project and this was a project that
received bonus points. She indicated that St. Louis Park was a participant in the
livable communities program and were awarded livable community
demonstration account funding.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that Met Council has awarded St. Louis Park two different
grants to this project area. So far the original grant was $139,000 to help the City
conduct the public process related to the charrette and developing the initial
concept plan, as well as doing feasibility studies to the proposed transit
circulators, market study, etc. After that was completed, the City went back and
asked Met Council for the demonstration account funds for this particular
redevelopment area and were awarded $1.2 million dollars for the first block of
this total redevelopment on the plan for the southern portion of the Town Green
and the development to the west of that along Excelsior Boulevard and 38th Street
that now is shown as Phase II, but under construction later next year.
Ms. Hanson indicated that most projects that have been in the repetitive cycle of
the livable communities demonstration account tend to continue to get funding as
they continue to score high.
Mr. Morris asked if the 1.3 million dollars already granted by Met Council was
still an open fund as we progress as it related to the shortfall projected for the
funding and the need to increase the housing density to make up for the shortfall.
Was the Met Council’s contribution factored into that?
50
Ms. Jeremiah stated that it was factored in and the door was left open to go back
to apply for additional funding as the project progressed, but it was not
guaranteed.
Mr. Garelick asked if the funding came from the State or Federal government.
Ms. Hanson believed that the funding came from the State who set up the livable
communities demonstration account, but would confirm that this was correct.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Gail Dorfman, 4200 Forest Road, stated that she recently attended a Minnikahda
Vista neighborhood meeting and was asked to attend the Planning Commission
meeting because of her historical perspective on the project. She stated that being
back in the room and seeing the new redevelopment plan reminded her of being in
this room when it was jammed with people and we were having our first charrette
to unveil the plan and have a community discussion. I want to make a couple of
points. When we started with this idea six years ago as part of the vision St.
Louis Park discussion, from the beginning it was a grassroots discussion. It was
never something driven by elected officials or City staff. I think it is reall y
critical that it started that way and has continued to progress that way all along. I
commend the City, because most City’s at this stage in the project, would have
stopped listening to people a long time ago and stopped having neighborhood
meetings to answer questions and concerns. There has been a series of task
forces, meetings, and discussion and a lot of private discussion with residents over
time, so I am very pleased to see that it really still is grassroots. From the very
beginning we understood that we were trying to achieve some principles and a
special place in our community. The community connections task force of Vision
St. Louis Park said that we really need a core or town center that helps identify
this community and be a place where people can gather, recreate and have a mix
of uses that would be residential, commercial and meet some concerns about arts
and recreation and public space in this community. I think this was at the heart of
what the community was trying to achieve in this area and what was embraced by
the livable community goals that became a part of this. From the beginning, there
was also an understanding that this was going to evolve over time. When I went
back a couple weeks ago, and looked at my rather large livable communities and
town center file, and looked at an early plan it was always changing. I saw an
early rendering done by one of the early consultants, Town Center Planning, that
had in fact four and five stories, and I know that changed over time. The width of
the town green changed over time. The concept plan tried to meet a vision and, as
it moved along and became a development proposal, there were going to be a lot
of changes. The challenge for the City with input from this community was how
you balance the vision and principles with some of the practical realities of
putting a development project of this complexity together. Holding tight to the
vision, while at the same time balancing traffic concerns, infrastructure costs, and
economic realities of how you do these deals was always going to be a challenge.
When I focused recently on where things have evolved to this point, I was really
pleased to see that, while things are not exactly the same and if I went through all
the details, I might say that it is too bad that the town green isn’t a little bit wider,
51
but the reality is that is still meets the original concepts and principles that we are
trying to achieve in this area and the community was trying to achieve in this area.
I commend the people in the community who have stuck with this project from
six years ago with the discussion and new people who have been coming on board
and asking questions and participating in this process all along. The City has
been very open to continuing that process. I am very excited to be here today and
to see this project at this point. I commend the City, the people of the City, City
staff and elected officials for sticking with this. I encourage the Planning
Commission to keep moving so this continues to go through the process and
believe it will continue to evolve further over the days and months ahead. I
remember meeting with the former Mayor of Minnetonka, Karen Anderson, and
she was teasing me because five former Mayors of St. Louis Park lived in
Minnetonka because when their kids got out of high school and they sold their
family home, they could not find the kind of housing that they wanted as empty
nesters in St. Louis Park. I know the housing task force of St. Louis Park said that
the gap in housing in St. Louis Park is in move-up housing that fits the needs of
our residents that are both owner and rental town homes and condominiums. One
of the goals that we were trying to meet as part of this town center was providing
that kind of housing. I think this plan that is before us also meets those needs. I
know this is one Mayor that when my kids graduate and I sell my family home
because I don’t need the space anymore, I will want to stay in St. Louis Park and I
hope that move-up housing is available for me then.
Bob Cunningham, Vice President of Development, TOLD Development, stated
that this is a general plan. We do plan in the coming months and the coming
years to enhance and modify the plans so that they work even better than what is
shown at this time. He stated that TOLD has never wavered from the principles
of the transit oriented, pedestrian friendly environment, but we feel this project
can be so much more than that. We begin the PUD application process in January
and there will be a lot of opportunity for citizen input on each one of our
applications, which we believe, is important. I am personally honored to be
working with the City and community to implement this exciting vision and make
it a reality.
Karen Bream, 3836 Glenhurst Avenue, stated that she has been a resident for 10
years. She stated that she was present to express her support of moving forward
with the project. She stated that she attended several of the charrette meetings
and was a citizen participant on the Wolfe Park redesign process. When I
originally started my involvement with the charrette process, Excelsior Boulevard
was looking tired and residents were struggling with living by pawnshops and sex
toy shops. St. Louis Park is a special place. Who knew I would meet new friends
that would remember the special history of the WPA constructed alongside
Highway 100. My husband and I chose to live in St. Louis Park because we value
the diversity, history and urban vitality of our community. I admit that I shop at
Home Depot, but I don’t like the way that area looks and it is a pretty sterile area.
Hopefully we don’t have a lot more of those developments in St. Louis Park. I
think that the Park Commons Project is vital and important for St. Louis Park’s
future and hope that we can go forward.
52
Rosemarie Zipoy, 3716 Inglewood Avenue, stated that the project is magnificent
and she is proud of St. Louis Park for taking this on and hopefully moving ahead.
I think it is wonderful that you are taking on the possibility of building a livable
community because it is very important. I think it will strengthen our suburb to
have something like this. I am extremely proud of the number of rental units. I
know that can be controversial, but in our region we have such a tremendous need
for rental units. I think we are a wonderful model for other suburbs in the region
to try to do the same thing. Everybody says not in our neighborhood, we don’t
want people renting, but it is an important life cycle decision for people and we
need to have those options available. We are currently in a housing crisis and as
an affordable housing advocate, the only thing that bothers me about the proposal
is the fact that there are going to be very few units that will be available for an
affordable cost. I would like to see a 15%-20% inclusion of affordable units. I do
have a concern with increased traffic, but have great faith that City would address
these problems if they possibly do arise.
Paul Zeigle, 4201 Toledo Avenue, stated he has been a resident of St. Louis Park
for 8 years and has been following this project and was involved in the Park
Commons West Task Force. I would like to show my support for this project and
hopefully these changes can be made so the project can continue. I am a
pedestrian and have a family, but only one car. We tend to go places by foot and
bike, so this is very important to give options to citizens that don’t want to have to
rely on an automobile and this is a project that is looking more long term.
Tom Stutsman, 3830 Glenhurst Avenue, stated that he is in support of the project
and looked forward to it moving forward. He stated that originally he lived in the
uptown area and had the opportunity to run a residential real-estate business and
live in that community during their changes, some of them controversial and
many of them revolving around traffic. The long-term affect of those projects has
been very beneficial to the area and to the residents who don’t have a car, or need
to walk, and for the residential value. When we chose to move to Minikahda
Vista, we moved to that location because we were between Lake and Hennepin
and 50th and France, two very viable and desirable areas to go to live and shop.
When we moved to St. Louis Park, we looked at the Excelsior Boulevard corridor
and said that this too can change and be beneficial and some day we could live
between three very viable areas. I have been anticipating a project like this and
expect to change over time, because change is necessary and the area is very
overdue for that.
David Payne, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard, an owner of Al’s Liquor for 29 years,
stated he has been an active participant in a lot of the City’s development and on
the original Excelsior Boulevard Design Committee. He is also President of
Special Service District 2 and was on the redesign committee for Wolfe Park. He
has noticed that Excelsior Boulevard was going down hill and rental rates were
dropping. Now that the new street has been developed, it is becoming viable
again and he likes the TOLD development proposal. He stated there is a street in
Boston developed by TOLD that would be similar to this type of development
and was very successful. He commended City staff for their wonderful work and
53
commitment to their work. He heard that TOLD is an excellent developer and
would do a good job on this project.
Ernie Feil, 3914 Ottawa Avenue South, stated that overall he was in favor of the
project, but he was concerned with certain aspects of it. When the density gets
higher, it is not just the residential density, but the commercial and residential
combined that is going to make rush hour on Excelsior Boulevard terrible because
there are not enough outlets. Related to parking, he asked how many were
residential and how many were commercial. Most of the current businesses along
there are off peak hour. It is not rush hour and now if you take and put in offices,
businesses and residential where people are going to be coming to work and
leaving to go to work it is going to create more congestion. My concern with the
way Natchez is going to be reconfigured is that if you put a light there, it is going
to funnel approximately a third of the traffic out of that area into the Minikahda
Vista neighborhood so they can then go to France Avenue or Quentin Avenue and
would naturally funnel them right in front of the school. Maybe the center island
should be continued in front of that intersection so that you could have a
pedestrian light and traffic light, but the traffic could not cross into the
neighborhood. I would have preferred to see a larger town green. The
perspective drawing that showed the 6 story building, in my opinion, was grossly
out of perspective and it doesn’t show what a 6 story building will really look
like. If you go to 8 stories, it is going to be too high and too much for the area. I
would also be concerned that no commercial antennas or satellites be allowed to
be put on top of any those buildings. If they need more residential to get this
density maybe they need to cut back on the commercial a bit. What kind return
on investment does it take to make a project economically viable?
Bob Cunningham of TOLD stated that is was almost impossible to identify what
the break down of the 2100 parking stalls are unit by unit, because they are
intended to serve a mixed use and will have different uses during different times
of the day. The p.m. peak hour is one of the components of a traffic analysis.
Ms. Jeremiah mentioned earlier the p.m. peak hour being reduced from our
proposed project to the one done sometime ago. Of the various commercial,
office and residential uses, approximately 30% of the p.m. peak hour would be
due to the residential and the balance of 70% would be for the commercial and the
office. Regarding the question about the return on investment to make a project
economically viable, the risk parameters in real estate development vary. We are
underwriting this particular project in 11% return on equity.
Chair Carver asked staff if there was a provision to address the concern about
antenna and satellite placement.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this is a detail that staff would look at in the PUD, but
currently the ordinance required screening of any rooftop equipment and in a
development like this would require architectural screening.
Chair Carver asked staff about the island on Excelsior Boulevard by Natchez.
54
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this was the kind of issue that was being reviewed as part
of the broader Excelsior Boulevard corridor study. The traffic studies that have
been done specific to this project did not show a lot of traffic using Natchez
because it doesn’t go very far without taking a turn.
Mr. Timian asked staff if it would be possible to make Natchez a one block long
one way going out to the north.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this could be looked at with the other traffic calming
ideas for the neighborhood, but noted that you don’t change one thing without
changing another.
Jim Rhodes, 3408 Rhode Island, stated that he was in support of the project. He
believes that the anticipated problems and concerns of some of the people in the
neighborhood would get worked out because this is the way this City operates. I
think we need a Center for the Arts in the area. I think this is a rebirth of St.
Louis Park and as empty nesters he would like to stay in St. Louis Park.
Nancy Nelson, 3819 Glenhurst Avenue, a resident for 17 years, stated that she
was in support of the project. She and her husband looked at moving, but didn’t
because St. Louis Park is the type of community that they want to live in. Part of
it is the way it is developing into a model community and has shown itself as a
model community in their effort with Children First, schools and nature center.
She is proud of the community and anxious to see this move forward.
Virginia Keegan, 4354 Browndale Avenue, stated that she was pleased to see the
enthusiasm. I am speaking on behalf of my husband who is in Ireland, who wants
to open an Irish pub in the area. We really feel that this Cit y needs places where
friends and families can gather. We feel it is important to have restaurants to go
to within walking distances. We have been frustrated that this process is taking so
long, but the plans are very exciting. She personally likes the idea of a Center for
the Arts. We don’t want to move, but do feel the taxes are getting a little steep
and if we don’t do something like this and do it quickly, I really think another
community might be the answer.
Chair Carver read a letter of November 13, 2000 from John D. McCain, Vice
President of Belt Line Industrial Park into the record (attached).
Betsy Baker, 3905 Kipling Avenue South, stated that she was opposed to urban
sprawl and would like to see less use of cars and more use of transit. I have
concerns about the project as it currently is. I am concerned about the public
process, funding, traffic and safety, density, school districts and aesthetics. Based
on the people who have talked already, you probably think that there are a lot of
people who are in favor of the development as it currently stands. However, in
the Minikahda Vista neighborhood consisting of the 850 houses, last year we did
a petition and we got 500 signatures and Wolfe Lake Condominiums got 100
signatures opposed to the level of density of what we thought came out of the
charrette. We had been meeting with the City Council and staff and they said they
didn’t know how we got this idea, because it was always going to be this dense.
55
We better look and see what happened. In researching this, we discovered that
out of the charrette there were no hard numbers, so miscommunication could be
really easy and apparently that happened. We were shown pictures of 2 and 3
story buildings. We liked the town green and all the communications, including
the Park Perspective or Sun Sailor, built up the Town Green and Wolfe Park, but
nothing about density, building height. There were no numbers until late 1999.
We reviewed meeting minutes and didn’t find any numbers and it is really easy
from the pictures we saw that we thought that it was going to be like 50th and
France or Linden Hills. That would be cozy and nice and that is why there was
no community opposition until then. That is why in 1999 when we were talking
of 600 units of residential and over 200,000 square feet of office retail in 15 acres,
we said that doesn’t sound like what we saw. We think there was an effort at
public process, but was not completed as full as it should have been. We also
found out that there was no cost benefit analysis done on this project at all, going
with the fact that we saw no numbers. It was in late 1998 that we found record
that the City Council found there were problems working the numbers. They
didn’t know up until then what this was going to cost. The properties were
bought in 1996, 1997 and 1998, by then $18 million had been spent on the land
and this needs to be recouped somehow. We don’t know if the intent was to have
density this large to begin with or did density become this large to cover the cost.
We hear conflicting accounts and this is disturbing to say the least. We do have
concerns about the School District. A number of years ago the school district
representatives were told there was going to be 200 units of apartments here and
now is 680 apartments. The elementary schools are packed and I don’t know if
on this $130 million project of which $39-42 million is going to be with TIF
funding. With 25 years TIF funding, are we going to be able to build a new
school to accommodate the density of new families? We don’t want to keep
families out, but with the combination of the new development in St. Louis Park
we are going to have an issue of crowded schools and we ought to be able to
finance those schools. Also, according to the Comprehensive Plan, we need to
have two fire stations that need to be seriously upgraded. Are we going to be able
to finance this? $42 million out of a $130 million project is 30% subsidy to the
developer, but yet we couldn’t come up with the money for a Civic Arts and
Music building. I think that is terrible. Is the 60 foot town green from curb to
curb, or is the green piece 60 feet?
Bob Cunningham of TOLD stated that the final programming of the Town Green
is not complete and will be part of the PUD application. One of the sketches that
were shown for the town green does have some hard scape on it. The town green
itself would be between 56 and 60 feet from the inside curb line to the inside curb
line, but the actual landscape inside the town green has not yet been programmed.
Ms. Baker asked how much green was in the new town median.
Bob Cunningham stated again that it was not programmed. It is entirely possible
that the entire town green is landscaped with no elements of hard scape if that is
indeed the programming that happens there.
56
Ms. Baker stated that she had questions about the taller buildings. Some
measurements were taken to see how it was going to look from the south side of
Excelsior Boulevard. I wonder if any thought has been given to what it is going
to look like from Wolfe Park. I just have a feeling that having two 7 foot
buildings on top of a hill overlooking Wolfe Park is going to make is seem like
Central Park in New York. I want to bring to your attention that although we are
told the number of stories that these buildings have, the first story is 20 feet tall,
so a 7-story building is going to look like an 8-story building. A 4-story building
lining Excelsior Boulevard is going to look like a 5-story building. If we are now
at 58 units per acre and we can go up to 75 units per acre, what is to prevent in the
future from going up that far. That is 1125 units in that area that we can have
because of the zoning if that gets changed. How much density can we handle
there? I have a question for Phyllis Hanson. The idea of giving bonus points
above 30 units, is that a national policy or only for this area?
Phyllis Hanson stated that is part of the livable communities demonstration
account that was a criteria that was set up by the Council, sub-committees and
through their housing and land use advisory committee. It was set up specifically
for this program when it was initiated through the State legislature in 1996 and
adopted by Met Council.
Ms. Baker stated that my neighborhood task force has done some reading about
livable community concepts and obviously it is a nation wide idea. I am not
saying that is bad, but I am wondering if the incentive to go higher than 30 units is
a standard. It seems that all things say that move-up housing is the main thing
that is facing St. Louis Park as a housing problem. Of the 680 residential units
that are in the TOLD development, how many are townhomes.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there are 38 for sale units including two level town
homes and town home flats.
Ms. Baker stated that some of them are not townhomes so they would be 1 and 2
bedroom apartment type, is that correct?
Ms. Jeremiah stated that some of them would be on one level, so it depends upon
your individual definition of townhomes. We had quite a desire for one level
units that are for sale in the City.
Ms. Baker stated that some of these were not move up housing, but maybe a 3
bedroom townhome could be considered move-up housing. I do not see a one
level townhome flat any more move-up then a lot of the charming bungalow type
of housing that people are moving from to get to larger units. I don’t want to see
the project killed. It has the potential to be very beautiful and very good. We
think it is too dense. There have been articles about the neighborhood’s concern
about traffic coming through the neighborhood. Even though the TOLD figures
are 300 or so less per peak p.m. period than the Avalon Bay, that is still more than
what currently exists. We don’t what that number is, but it will be a strain on that
neighborhood.
57
Bob Cunningham stated that this plan shows owner occupied housing in two
locations, both facing 38th and 39th. The configuration of the owner occupied
housing would be 4 story buildings with a combination of unit types addressing a
wide market demand. Some people prefer to have two level townhomes and that
is what is going to be accommodated along grade at both of these locations.
Some of these people prefer to have single level living and that too will be
accommodated on level 3 and 4 of these buildings. There will be underground
parking with two parking stalls per building and elevator access for level 3 and
level 4.
Mr. Timian asked if there was going to be any green space for people around the
townhomes.
Bob Cunningham stated there is some green space directly behind the units
similar to the Coventry project in Edina at France Avenue & York by Centennial
Lakes.
Virginia Keegan asked what is the approximate price range.
Bob Cunningham stated that the size and style of the townhomes would vary. We
will work with a third party for the development of the townhomes. This is an
area that we don’t have a great deal of expertise in. We are currently talking in
the $250,000 - $300,000 ranges, but will vary greatly with the size of the unit, etc.
Dennis Beste, 3654 Glenhurst Avenue, stated that he is in agreement with what
has happened on Excelsior Boulevard so far. It has been excellent and I love it.
The boulevard looks beautiful compared to what it used to look like when it was
going down hill. The northeast corner of Excelsior and Highway 100 with the
Mann Theater and small retail shops are nice. I am not opposed to have some
affordable housing, however there is a little bit of an oxymoron for me, like
military intelligence. I think 7-story livable community is an oxymoron and it
doesn’t fit for me. I know there are only two options for the train that is heading
down the track. One option says that we have a fixed cost that we spent, we have
a development plan that will bring in an income and that includes 7 to 8 story
housing. That is the solution because the cost is spent and we need to bring in the
revenue side and we are still financing over 25 to 30 years, but for me that is not a
neighborhood. I would say that we need an exit strategy that I don’t think is
being developed any place. Like the original development plan, we had with 2-4
story buildings, no 7-8 stories with a wider common area and maybe you need to
sell off some of this land that you bought and pay some of this fixed costs that is
already out there. I don’t support the current plan and I don’t think the Minikahda
Vista neighborhood does either. I am concerned about traffic and pressure on
schools and fire stations. I believe the City will come up with some version to
help solve the traffic, but you can’t put this type of density in and not affect the
neighborhood.
Steve Bufferington, 3800 Huntington, stated that I have been a resident of St.
Louis Park for 27 years. I have watched Excelsior Boulevard for 3 decades now,
and I would have to say that I highly commend the City for the redevelopment of
58
the Boulevard. The streetscape is gorgeous and everything is where it ought to
be in Park Center West. I think we can continue to have a good and proportionate
plan. Development is definitely called for. The west is done and the east is ok.
The middle is left to do, and that is where Park Center East is. I would propose to
the Commission that perhaps like Mr. Beste said, 7 stories even to the back is
very high. I came around the corner by the post office and looked up and the
Lang Nelson building loomed even from across Excelsior Boulevard. What about
buildings that are a story higher and 200 feet closer to the edge of the hill. Wolfe
Park is one of our civic jewels and it is not the greatest planning to crowd it with
large buildings and wall to wall parking underground. It may be time to fall back,
regroup, rethink and give some thought to another financial plan. Perhaps eat
some sunk costs. The real-estate has been purchased with pooled tax increment
financing funds that are surplus from other tax increment financing districts.
There is another $21 million that are going to be the City’s piece that is going to
be part of the development that is coming up. Is that good public stewardship to
have that much or maybe there needs to be a public subsidy no matter what, but is
one of these sizes for this size of a development a good thing. Are we stuck with
this plan or should we think again? This is not the only plan, there are a lot of
smart people out there that can come up with another plan. There is unanimity on
the idea that the good development is a good thing. The question is how we
should do it, how should we spend our money, what should be there and whether
it fits there.
Mr. Timian asked if the $21 million figure is a good figure.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that she believes that this is a good figure for the pay as you
go portion of the tax increment financing which is the money that would be
recouped from the additional taxes derived from the new development.
Fran Rutherford, 4820 W. 39th Street, #318, Wolfe Lake Condominiums, stated
that she has been involved in the whole process. I moved to St. Louis Park 10
years ago. After I looked for a place to live where I could have everything in my
neighborhood, I was happy to think of this development. I like to walk
everywhere. I am worried about the density and the traffic on Excelsior
Boulevard and the Minikahda Vista neighborhood, but there hasn’t been much
said about what kind of traffic there is going to be on 38th and 39th Street. On 39th
Street, we have three driveways and that traffic is going to be really horrendous. I
don’t like the idea of 7-8 story buildings their either. I agree that a 7-story
building doesn’t make a livable community. I do like what has been done to
Excelsior Boulevard. I worked on the task forces and enjoyed it, but the higher
density and traffic is not what I envisioned through any of this.
Virginia Keegan asked home many homes have been displaced.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there were 17 single-family homes acquired.
Ernie Feil asked where they were going to put the snow in the current plan. I
would also like to see a minimum of 50 feet of actual vegetation in between
sidewalks. About the water, I know we haven’t had any problem recently, but we
59
have had dry spells and the watering bans are in affect, would this do an undo
load on the water so that would cause bans to kick in more often and longer
periods.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that we would anticipate that this area would become part of
a special service district that would handle the snow removal issues and criteria.
This area is expected to be held to a very high standard with regard to keeping the
sidewalk and streets clear of snow at all times so they are passable by pedestrians
and automobiles. When the snow would be removed will be part of the
discussion and determined in the future. I suggest that you stay involved in the
process, because the issue of the minimum amount of green, will be the kinds of
the discussions that will take place as part of the PUD. There are many details to
be worked out. This is a concept and provides a minimum for the width of the
space, but does not program it. All of the utility issues have been looked at in the
big picture with the proposed densities, and there were no utility issues that could
not be readily handled. A lot of the utility infrastructure will be replaced.
Hilary Beste, 3654 Glenhurst Avenue, stated she thinks that when most people are
leaving their home, it because they are empty nesters and they don’t usually want
to move into apartment buildings unless they are going into assisted care. Most
people who own homes want to buy condominium or a townhome that is smaller
maybe but they still own. I think that only having 38 townhomes still means that
the vast majority of the politicians will have to move to Minnetonka and was less
than 6% of the whole housing piece.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff has asked the developer for flexibility for
conversion of apartments to condominiums if there is a high demand. It has been
hard to judge the condominium market and it is a little bit harder to provide
condominiums up front with the development, but we have been assured that they
would provide the type of amenities and individual utilities to the units so they
could be converted to condominiums if the demand exists.
Virginia Keegan asked what the projected lifetime of the Westmoreland and
Wolfe Lake Condominiums Park housing is.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the Wolfe Lake Condominiums units have a long-term
maintenance plan to keep up their units and make sure they are viable well into
the future. I noticed that Westmoreland Hills Condominiums have made some
improvements and pay dues to ensure the maintenance of their facility, so we
don’t anticipate any problems and expect them to be viable.
Fran Rutherford, Wolfe Lake Condominiums, stated that we had put in a petition
that stated that we were very much in favor of the lower density and I think
Westmoreland did too. I hope we are here in the future. I know that Wolfe Lake
Condominiums are very marketable and currently sell just as soon as they go on
the market.
Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
60
Mr. Morris stated the Planning Commission already has heard and considered
many of the comments raised this evening. We know it is a concept and it needs
to be tweaked. We were here when Avalon Bay informed the Planning
Commission that there were going to be only 20 for-sale units. Most of my
comments will be reserved to the point of getting into the PUD and the future
development. One thing I would like to recommend to the Planning Commission
is similar to what Councilmember Nelson proposed is that if there are similar
locations either in St. Louis Park or close to the City that had the density or height
of the townhomes that we could go on a tour and visualize from an already
developed site of that this concept would look like.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff looked at some comparative densities and the
closest is the 7 story apartment building called Menorah Plaza next to City Hall
that comes in at 58 units per acre and is close to a small park and single family
residential. The reason that this plan is a livable communities demonstration
project is because there are not a lot of these mixed use developments being
proposed or built.
Mr. Morris asked staff if the new Heritage Landings in Minneapolis is an
example.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff could draw some comparisons, but I believe we can
do better.
Mr. Garelick stated that he wished neighborhood feeling of the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood would spread to the rest of the City. You are lucky to live where
you are and I hope you will have a positive attitude of the development. I looked
at the sale of individual homes in your area and the average home is going
between $200,000 - $300,000. St. Louis Park since January, 2000 has appreciated
28%. If we don’t do something for move-up housing we might have the next
Minnetonka. The number one thing people say to me is that they want move-up
housing and it doesn’t exist. I look at this development coming into the area. It
was a much larger project before, but this will be the first step in making St. Louis
Park a dynamic viable place where people want to continue living generation after
generation. This is going to help the value of your houses and people are going to
want to live there, so enjoy it.
Mr. Timian asked if there was an equation for the mix of move-up housing.
Mr. Jeremiah stated that there is no equation. I think that the City Manager spoke
to some of the difficulties in addressing the move-up housing issue given the
limited amount of land to do new projects. People’s expectations are different
and move-up housing means different things to different people.
Mr. Timian asked if staff could put together some information on the numbers of
all the different types of housing in St. Louis Park.
61
Mr. Jeremiah stated that she could revisit this issue that was done as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update that was done last year since there have been a
number of projects that have come in that addressed move-up housing.
Mr. Timian asked that this information be published in the Sun Sailor. Also, I am
on the School Board and we do see a lot of people leaving our community looking
for move-up housing. We are losing young families continuously moving out to
get larger housing. This is an issue for the school and I don’t see a lot of children
coming into this development, but are we designing ourselves out of a school
district in the future and becoming a gray community.
Mr. Garelick stated that he is told by a lot of people that move-up housing is
getting out of larger homes and they want everything on one-level. There is just
not any room to build more single family homes in St. Louis Park.
Ms. Velick stated that she agrees that there is no move-up housing and we need to
preserve every bit of land that we have and do the best we can with it. I think it is
an oxymoron to say that density and urban sprawl is not good but this is too
dense. I think this will promote community in the long run and encourage
continued neighborhood involvement in the planning process.
Mr. Gothberg stated one of the things I have seen throughout the progress of this
project is a continual refinement and improvement. What we have here is an
excellent basis to move forward to further detail planning. In the area of density,
I don’t personally have any problem with people density. I think the major part of
the problem that people have with density is with traffic density, and we have to
wait and see the results of traffic study before I form any personal opinion about
the issue of density. I think we need to move forward with this plan and get into
more of the details.
Mr. Timian stated we have a development on Excelsior Boulevard by
Meadowbrook that does not have green space, and were told by the developer that
there would be a lot of senior citizens living there, but there are a lot of kids
playing in the street and this is a concern for me. I do not want to have another
development like that in St. Louis Park.
Chair Carver stated that one word that describes what we are looking at here is
evolution. It is important to come together to discuss the issues where it should
ultimately end up. I have also heard the idea of a gathering place. It is important
to make a specific place in St. Louis Park that will roll off your tongue like 50th
and France and Lake and Hennepin. It won’t be like either one of those places. It
will have its own identity. We definitely need the businesses for the tax base and
that kind of continued development along that area so that area remains viable. I
personally tend to think that condominiums are the way to go and encourage a
hard look at the feasibility of condominiums. We are in a different time than we
have ever been in before. If we rely on what market studies tell us from 5 years
ago, that is not going to tell us what is going to work in the future. It is important
that the town green maintain essential aspect of being green and that a hard look
62
be taken to see if a building must be 7 stories, instead of 5-6 stories before we
take the step beyond which there is no return.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use map and Redevelopment
Chapter as recommended in the staff report subject to Metropolitan Council
approval.
Ms. Velick asked about the addition of looking at the area of Natchez in the traffic
study.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the traffic issues would be looked at with the PUD and
the Natchez area would be looked at as a part of a broader study, however staff
would consider recommendations. Staff would attempt to make sure the
neighborhood was comfortable with any changes to the traffic flow in the area.
Mr. Morris asked if as part of the zoning change will there be a traffic study
needed in order to determine if zoning changes are proposed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that what we would look at with the zoning is primarily
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We want to make sure the capacity is
there and we can make it work. The real specific recommendations about changes
in the neighborhood would be a part of the PUD process.
Mr. Morris stated he would be willing to accept a friendly amendment to direct
staff to study the traffic generally, but specifically the items that were raised at the
meeting, including the impact on Natchez and traffic into the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood.
Ms. Velick stated that it was important that the residents who expressed concern
about traffic would know that further study will be made at this time and they will
be informed of the outcome.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris,
Timian, and Velick voting in favor.
63
-----Original Message-----
From: Sixel, Michael [SMTP:msixel@Carlson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 1:24 PM
To: 'jjeremiah@stlouispark.org'; 'PCARVER@Bowman-Brooke.com'
Subject: tonight's planning commission meeting
Janet and Paul,
Tom Harmening had suggested that since I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting, that I
might want to submit my thoughts for the record. Please have the following read into the record
(or whatever I need to say to have this be in lieu of my appearance).
To the Planning Commission of St. Louis Park:
I wish that I could be there tonight, but as the president of the Browndale Neighborhood
Association, I need to run our final meeting of the year tonight. I would like to submit my
thoughts on the Park Commons development. I will be submitting my thoughts as President of
the Association, and my personal opinion.
My thoughts as the Browndale President:
Park Commons has been discussed several times in our Browndale neighborhood meetings. On
one occasion, another neighborhood association came with their feelings (quite negative) on the
development, and there was some discussion at that meeting about how Browndale felt. It was
not voted on, but the mood of the meeting was quite unanimous. Browndale wants the Park
Commons project to go forward. We want to walk to restaurants (preferably not fast food chains
only!), and to retail shops. That's one of the reasons we live in the part of the Park we live in.
The Association was concerned about traffic impacts, but does not view it as a major issue if
traffic is well managed.
My thoughts as just another citizen:
I could not be more strongly in favor of the current plans for Park Commons. St. Louis Park has
a unique opportunity to create a vibrant urban center. We should take this opportunity. I am not
worried about the density of the project. I believe that we could use some mid to high end rental
property in the city. My wife and I just put 10's of thousands of dollars into our house, because
of the Park Commons project, and the opportunities it creates for restaurants, retail, all within
walking distance of our house. I have yet to talk to a neighbor who is not for this project. I urge
the Commission and the City Council not to listen to the vocal minority on this issue. Yes,
things are different than some believe was originally conceived in the charette process, but, that
is the evolution of a project this size. I have talked to friends and co-workers who live in Golden
Valley and Edina, they too are excited about this project.
I look forward to the chance to present my thoughts in person someday.
Sincerely,
Mike Sixel
64
Janet Jeremiah
From: Caren Dewar [caren.dewar@metc.state.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 12:37 PM
To: Jjeremiah@stlouispark.org
Cc: Eli Cooper; Elizabeth Ryan; Joanne Barron
Subject: St Louis Park densities
Janet,
In reviewing the LCDA criteria, we actually award more points for projects that come in over 30
units/acre. Please talk with Joanne if you need another copy of the criteria.
I have asked Eli Cooper to prepare a letter for you re: our comp plan policy and ensure that a
Met Council rep will attend your Planning Commission meeting on the 15th.
Caren
65
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of December 4, 2000
6a. Approval of 2001 Liquor License Renewals
Request of Council to approve year 2001 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off-
sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor and off-sale and on-sale 3.2%
malt liquor.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve renewal of licenses
Background:
Renewal applications, liquor liability insurance certificates and license fees have been received
from all applicants for 2000 liquor licenses. City Ordinance requires property tax payments to be
current prior to issuance of a liquor license and all tax payments for these properties are current.
Following Council approval of the renewals, information will be sent to the MN Department of
Public Safety for state approval.
Council recently adopted an updated liquor license ordinance which changes renewal dates from
December to March of each year. Licenses being issued during this first transitional year will
run from December 16, 2000 through February 28, 2002, a duration of approximately 15 months.
The longer duration will not affect 2001 or 2002 revenues, but insurance certificates will need to
be obtained at year end of 2001 to cover the remaining 3 months of the license period. The State
Liquor Licensing Division is aware of and supports this change in our ordinance and will work
with us to obtain extended liquor liability coverages to ensure compliance with state law.
Enforcement Issues:
Because calls for service are recorded by address, and many addresses contain more than one
business or type of business, it is not possible to separate calls occurring at liquor establishments
from other businesses located at the same address. Our Police Department staff does not feel
that a summary of those numbers as has been presented in the past is indicative of problems
associated with liquor sales. As an alternative, computer printouts with detailed information and
full documentation of each call are available in the City Clerk’s office and will be made available
upon request.
Violations:
Specific violations which occurred during the 2000 licensing year and administrative penalties
imposed are as follows:
Name Violation Date Violation Type Resolution of Violation
Classic Cafe 22-Apr-00 Sale of Liquor to a Minor Paid $2000 8/15/00
Jennings Red Coach Inn 22-Apr-00 Sale of Liquor to a Minor Paid $1000 6/7/00
Knollwood Liquor 22-Apr-00 Sale of Liquor to a Minor Paid $1000 6/29
66
Texas-Tonka Liquors
(Summit)
22-Apr-00 Sale of Liquor to a Minor Paid $1000 6/6/00
Vic's Liquor 18-Jan-00 sale of liquor to a minor Paid $1000 9/6/00
Westwood Liquors 22-Apr-00 Sale of Liquor to a Minor Paid $1000 6/29
The Police Department has indicated no criminal or civil violations of liquor laws which they
feel would warrant withholding renewal of license for any establishment within the city.
Attachments: 2001 Applicant List
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
67
Licensee Name Establishment Name Address
3-2
Off Sale
3-2
On Sale
Intox
On Sale
Intox
Off Sale
Intox
Sunday Total Fee
Al's Liquor Store Inc.Al's 3912 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $7,500
Apple American Ltd Ptsp of MN Applebee's Neighborhood /Grill Bar 8332 Hwy 7 $7,500 $200 $7,700
Den-Way Inc.Bennigan's #2415 6475 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Rackner Inc.Bunnys 5916 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Byerly's Inc.Byerly's St. Louis Park 3777 Park Ctr Blvd $750 $750
Byerly Beverages, Inc.Byerly's Wine & Spirits 3785 Park Ctr Blvd $200 $200
Chili's of MN Inc.Chili's Southwest Grill & Bar 5245 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Gold, Stephen Ira Classic Cafe 4700 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Costco Wholesale Corp Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St $200 $200
DT Management Inc.Doubletree Park Place Hotel 1500 Park Place Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Fuddruckers Inc Fuddruckers 6445 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
CapStar BK Company LLC Holiday Inn 9970 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Jennings Red Coarh Inn, Inc.Jennings 4608 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $200 $200 $7,900
Knollwood Liquor Inc.Knollwood Liquor 7924 State Hwy 7 $200 $200
Mpls Golf Club Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S $200 $200
GMRI Inc Olive Garden #1424 5245 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Philips Investment Co.Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes 3401 Louisiana Ave S $7,500 $200 $7,700
Rainbow Foods Rainbow Foods 8950 State Hwy 7 $50 $50
Sam's West Inc.Sam's Club #6318 3745 Louisiana Ave S $50 $200 $250
B & A Inc.Santorini's 9920 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Brinda-Heilicher/St. Louis Pk Inc.Shelly's Woodroast 6501 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Super Valu/Cub Super Valu/Cub 3620 Texas Ave S $50 $50
Taste of India/St. Louis Pk Inc.Taste of India 5617 Wayzata Blvd $750 $750
Texas-Tonka Liquors Inc.Texas-Tonka Liquors 8242 Minnetonka Blvd $200 $200
H.J.K.S. Inc.Texa-Tonka Lanes 8200 Minnetonka Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
TGI Friday's of MN Inc.TGI Fridays 5875 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Timber Lodge Steakhouse Inc.Timber Lodge Steakhouse 5500 Excelsior Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Tom Thumb Tom Thumb 8000 Minnetonka Blvd $50 $50
Vescio's of St. Louis Park, Inc.Vescio's Italian Restaurant 4001 State Hwy 7 $750 $750
VFW 5632 VFW 5605 36th St W $200 $200
Rocklin, Abe A.Vic's Liquor 6316 Minnetonka Blvd $200 $200
FC Liquors 2 Inc.Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S $200 $200
Yangtze Inc.Yangtze River Rest.5615 Wayzata Blvd $7,500 $200 $7,700
Mandali Khan Corp.Yvette's Restaurant 600 South Hwy 169 $7,500 $200 $7,700
$150,550
68
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of December 4, 2000
6b. Approval of 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program
Request of Council to approve years 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 25, 2000 study session, staff presented an update and draft of improvement and
maintenance Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) projects for the years 2000 and 2001. This
effort represented a follow-up a to the February 14 Council study session at which a strategy for
compiling the C.I.P. was presented. At both study sessions, Council also reviewed and provided
feedback on several projects. General capital financing strategies were also presented.
While individual departments have compiled C.I.P. documents in the recent past, this effort
represents the most comprehensive Citywide approach in the last eight years. Moreover, for the
first time, this C.I.P. includes information on replacement of computer technology and the fleet
of vehicles and associated equipment.
Using input from the study sessions, the intent of the current effort is to submit a final 2000-2001
C.I.P and present anticipated related sources of funding. As in the past, individual improvement
projects included in the C.I.P. are reviewed and must be approved by Council prior to
implementation. In addition, staff will continue normal public input processes. In contemplation
of many of these projects, the 2001 annual operating budget was developed to include related
operating costs. Work on a full five-year C.I.P., including a public input process, will begin
following approval of this 2-year effort. The plan is to present a 2002-2006 program to Council
in the spring of 2001.
C.I.P. ELEMENTS
Presented below are the goals, scope, and related considerations of the C.I.P. process and
document. Based on Council feedback on February 14, modifications were made to ensure that
many “visible” projects, some of which may be more maintenance in nature, are included in the
C.I.P.
Goals
The C.I.P. should:
Improve the management of City assets and infrastructure
Make planned improvements more visible
Improve coordination among City departments and other agencies
Enhance the commitment to complete planned projects
69
Make resource requirements more predictable
Better align City projects with goals of neighborhoods
Scope
Broad categories and sources of potential C.I.P. include:
Comprehensive Plan / Improvement (New) Projects
Rehabilitation/Reconditioning Projects
Redevelopment Projects (often EDA)
Reconstruction Projects*
Maintenance Projects*
Expansion Projects
Vision St. Louis Park Linked Projects
Shared School District Related Projects
*shown in “Useful Life” field in C.I.P. details.
Related Considerations
Input from Public, Council, Staff**
Project Proposal Forms
Review / Prioritize Projects Based on Needs / Cost Analysis**
Assign Project to Appropriate Year
Timely Council Review / Approval
Summary and Detailed C.I.P. Documents for Different Audience Needs
Adoption of 5-Year C.I.P. with Annual Council Review / Updates**
**to be incorporated in 2002-2006 C.I.P.
PROPOSED PROJECTS DOCUMENT:
Given these goals, scope, and related considerations, staff embarked on describing projects for
only 2000 and 2001, though a few later projects also appear. Staff from Public Works, Parks and
Rec, and Community Development have devoted significant time to the C.I.P. content and
presentation format. Through review of this process and presentation for these two years,
feedback from Council on these projects and the presentation format, staff will refine and
improve the C.I.P. for the next round, intended to include five years worth of projects. Most
notably, the public input process at the front end of the planning cycle will be enhanced.
There are several elements of the proposed C.I.P. attached for review:
Project Detail Sheets – Parks and Rec projects are followed by Public Works projects. Public
EDA-related components of projects typically cross into one or both of these departments. Type
is always shown as “Improvement”, though some projects are maintenance or re-constructive in
nature. In those cases, it is so noted in the Useful Life area. Priorities have not been assigned and
70
this, along with the reports described below, will become much more meaningful in the five-year
plan.
Project Summaries – Reports of projects by year, department total, and department detail.
Funding Summaries – Reports of project revenue summaries and projects by funding source.
Operations Summaries – Summary and detail reports of the impact of projects on various
operating budgets.
It should also be noted that certain elements have been added to this proposed document since
the September 25 study session:
Computer Technology – Summary information for future replacement investments in hardware,
software, and network related technology. Similar information for radio, telephone, and office
technologies will be provided in the 2002-2006 plan.
Fleet - Summary information for future replacement investments in vehicles and related
equipment through the Equipment Replacement Fund.
School District –Known School District projects that are shared with the City relative to use or
financing (in Parks and Recreation) have been included.
FINANCING:
On February 14, Finance Director Jean McGann presented preliminary information and
approaches on capital financing and debt policies. Based on Council input provided on February
14, staff incorporated financing information into the C.I.P. document (see detail and summary
sheets).
Based on projects currently shown in 2000 and 2001, it has been estimated that the City will
need to issue approximately $1.2 million of General Obligation Bonds in the spring of 2002.
This would have the net effect of a temporary 1.5 – 2.0 % tax levy increase until 2011, assuming
no additional General Revenue Bond issues. This increased tax levy would likely be more than
offset by changes in tax capacity over time. In addition, less than $3 million of General
Obligation Revenue Bonds would need to be issued in early 2001, primarily to support
stormwater related projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program. Again,
individual improvement projects will be submitted to Council for review and approval or
rejection.
Attachment: C.I.P.
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
71
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
December 4, 2000
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. Waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2. Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00 to vacate a
portion of West 24th Street (nka Stephens Drive) west of Utica Avenue as requested by
Novartis and originally approved as a part of the Novartis Addition, adopt Ordinance,
approve summary ordinance and authorize publication.
3. Motion to adopt a resolution amending final plat resolution and extending final plat filing
deadline for Novartis Addition to February 6, 2001.
4. Motion to designate Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for
one (1) Ice Resurfacing Machine and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement
with Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. in the amount of $30,400.00.
5. Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 72-98 with
ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant services required to implement the
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year
2001.
6. Motion to approve resolution authorizing final payments for Ron Kassa Construction,
Inc. in the amount $ 19,598.25 and Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $ 6,238.51:
7. Motion to approve a cost sharing agreement with Reilly Industries, Inc. whereby both
parties pay equally for additional groundwater monitoring required by the state and
federal governments.
8. Motion to approve the contract with Hennepin Parks to clear and remove snow from the
Southwest LRT trail through the City of St. Louis Park.
9. Motion to adopt resolution removing truck and axle load restrictions on specified MSA
routes.
10. Motion to amend Appendix A to Resolution No. 00-108 – Council Rules of Procedure
11. Motion to accept the following for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of August 16, 2000
b. Vendor Claims
72
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 2
Meeting of December 4, 2000
2. Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00
to vacate a portion of West 24th Street (nka Stephens Drive) west of Utica
Avenue as requested by Novartis and originally approved as a part of the
Novartis Addition, adopt Ordinance, approve summary ordinance and
authorize publication.
Background:
On November 20, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of an Ordinance amendment to
correct the legal description of a vacation of a portion of Stephens Drive west of Utica Avenue
South. The vacation was originally requested as part of a subdivision request from Novartis.
The City Council approved the plat on June 5, 2000, and held second reading of the vacation on
June 19, 2000.
The attorney for Novartis, who is attempting to file the plat, is requesting to change the legal
description from Stephens Drive to West 24th Street to correspond with the original street
dedication. A portion of West 24th Street west of TH 100 was renamed to Stephens Drive in
1992.
Attachments: Proposed Corrected Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
73
ORDINANCE NO.2185-00
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 ex ist 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
74
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2185-00
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2170-00 VACATING
PORTION OF WEST 24TH STREET (NKA STEPHENS DRIVE)
This ordinance states that a portion of West 24th Street (nka Stephens Drive) lying west of Utica
Avenue shall be vacated. This ordinance corrects the legal description and a reference i n
approved ordinance 2170-00.
This Ordinance is contingent upon certain conditions being met, and shall not take effect
until at least fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council December 4, 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: December 13, 2000
00-26-VAC-sum/N/res/ord
75
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 3
Meeting of December 4, 2000
3. Motion to adopt a resolution amending final plat resolution and extending
final plat filing deadline for Novartis Addition to February 6, 2001.
Background:
There are several issues which have arisen in conjunction with the Novartis Addition plat which
have delayed recording. The legal description of vacated West 24th Street is being corrected by
Council action. In addition, there are title issues involving the City for some of the property
within the plat. The City Attorney’s office and City staff are working with Novartis to resolve
these issues, and staff is recommending approximately 60 days additional to do this and record
the plat.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending adoption of a resolution amending the final plat resolution and extending
the plat filing deadline to February 6, 2001.
Attachments:
Proposed amended Resolution
Letter requesting extension
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
76
RESOLUTION NO. 00-149
Amends Resolutions 00-109 & 00-072
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
AND FINAL PLAT OF NOVARTIS ADDITION
(EXTENSION FOR FILING OF PLAT)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Novartis Nutrition, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as
Novartis Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of said
subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code,
and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The subdivider has requested a two month extension for the filing of the final plat
with Hennepin County due to land sale issues.
4. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
See Attached Legal Description
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Novartis Addition 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. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Official Exhibits BB
and CC.
B. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
1. Sign assent form and official exhibits.
2. 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.
3. A development agreement is not required to be executed.
4. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents.
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
77
of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an
electronic data format.
D. An approximately 60 day extension from the date of this amendment shall be granted for
filing of the final plat by February 6, 2001.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2000
City Manager Mayor
00=24=S-3/N/res/ord
Attest:
City Clerk
78
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 4
Meeting of December 4, 2000
4. Motion to designate Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for one (1) Ice Resurfacing Machine and to authorize
execution of a purchase agreement with Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc.
in the amount of $30,400.00.
Background: Bids were received on October 25, 2000 for the purchase of one (1) Ice
Resurfacing Machine as provided for in the 2000 Equipment Replacement Program. An
advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on October 11, 2000. Bid
packages were issued to two (2) known vendors nationwide. No other bids were received. A
summary of the bid results is as follows:
* F. J. Zamboni & Co. Becker Arena Products
Base Bid $ 55,900.00 $ 56,526.00
Less Trade ( 23,500.00) (25,000.00)
Less Option 2 Deduct (2,000.00) (1,000.00)
Total Net Bid Price * 30,400.00 30,526.00
* Low Bidder
Both bids are acceptable. The City Attorney was consulted during the review of these bids.
Financial Considerations: All vendors were required to bid a machine powered by compressed
natural gas. An alternative for a propane powered by machine was included as Option #2.
Option #2 provided for a deduction from the bid amount for a propane powered machine. The
difference in cost between compressed natural gas and propane gas is not a significant figure.
However, the installation of a fueling station for compressed natural gas is very costly, estimated
at $10,000. This cost would have been added to the cost of the bid. Economically this would not
be beneficial to the City at this time. Also, the fueling station would have been installed inside
of the Rec Center. The fire marshal recommended against pursuing that option at this time as the
concern was a potential fuel leak in a public facility during refueling of th e machine. Staff
recommends the purchase of a propane powered machine from F.J. Zamboni & Company with
the Option #2 deduction as provided for at a total net purchase price of $30,400.00.
Council authorized the purchase of this equipment in 1999 as one of the 2000 major equipment
purchases. The 2000 Equipment Replacement Program estimated $56,650 as the gross purchase
cost of this Ice Resurfacing Machine.
Prepared By: Harlan Backlund/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
79
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 5
Meeting of December 4, 2000
5. Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 72-
98 with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant services required
to implement the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) during year 2001.
Background: In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City
accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly
RAP. Over the last 13 years the City has retained the services of nine consulting engineers or
firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. One firm, ENSR,
has served as the cornerstone of the professional “consortium” because of its extensive historical
relationship with the Reilly project. Currently the City has a one (1) year Contract with ENSR
for consultant services. The current contract expires December 31, 2000 but has a final renewal
option for year 2001. The activities or services provided by this contract are:
Groundwater sampling and analysis
Preparing annual reports for agency review
Aquifer studies
Investigation of leaking wells
Laboratory audits and coordination
Historical file searches
General project administration
Discussion: While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed by
ENSR and others, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting
represent ongoing activities which will require consultant assistance in year 2001 and into the
foreseeable future. ENSR has provided consultant services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and
as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agencies) as an approved consultant for such activities.
Staff supports the continued use of ENSR for such services.
The general ongoing tasks identified above vary from year to year. The following tasks are
planned for 2001:
Task 100 – 2000 Annual Monitoring Report: This task involves drafting text and preparing
figures and tables to assist the City in completing the 2000 Annual Monitoring Report. The
Annual Monitoring Report includes analytical results from the past year sampling efforts, as well
as groundwater contour maps. Additionally, a historical summary of analytical results is
provided in the Annual Monitoring Report. This report is due to the U.S.EPA and MPCA
(Agencies) on March 15, 2001. The task budget shown in Table 1 is based on assistance from
LOGIS to prepare the final maps, using our database. ENSR will complete the rest of the work
to produce the report.
80
Task 150 – 2000 Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report: ENSR will assist the City in
completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on March 15, 2001. Table 1 reflects
the same $8,000 budget that was in last year’s budget.
Task 400 – Groundwater Monitoring: This task involves groundwater sample collection in
accordance with the 2001 Sampling Plan and water level measurements pursuant to that Plan.
The cost for this task, shown in Table 1, assumes that, in 2001, ENSR will collect the number of
samples that are identified in the 2001 Sampling Plan, namely:
Approximately 11 Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer samples (12 additional samples
will be collected under Task 500)
Sixteen St. Peter Aquifer samples (two rounds of sampling eight wells)
Twenty-two Platteville Aquifer samples (two rounds of sampling 11 wells)
Twenty-six Drift Aquifer samples (two rounds of sampling 13 wells)
Table 1 indicates a cost of $30,000 for this work, based on approximately the same total number
of samples and this same task budget for previous years.
VII. Task 500 – Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer Remedy Implementation: This task
includes the installation of a new monitor well (W413) and, quarterly monitoring for
wells W48, W119 and W413. This task may also include limited follow-up with the
Agencies regarding finalization of the NPDES permit and groundwater monitoring
(action criteria and well W119). Assuming no adverse groundwater monitoring
results are obtained, no other work activities are anticipated in 2001. ENSR
assumes the City will prepare and submit the quarterly DMR reports to MPCA that
will be required under the anticipated NPDES permit for well SLP6 discharge (even
if the well is not pumped this year).
The costs in Table 1 reflect a task structure to track costs in accordance with Exhibit A of the
City-Reilly Cost Sharing Agreement. Task 530 includes ENSR’s assistance to the City in
preparing the drilling bid package, limited oversight of the well construction, and a brief report
of the installation to the Agencies. Task 540 will cover ENSR’s costs to collect the 12
groundwater samples. Task 550 will track costs related to the NPDES permit. Any
administrative or miscellaneous costs incurred by ENSR related to the implementation of the
remedy for this aquifer will also be included in Task 550.
Task 600 – Laboratory Coordination: This task includes working with Severn Trent on
improvements to the project analytical methods, coordinating sampling events, updating and
maintaining the water quality database, and providing data review and data validation at the
same levels provided in 2000.
Task 700 – Site Closure: This task has historically included negotiations with MPCA to
establish cessation criteria for the Drift, Platteville and St. Peter aquifer pumping wells. Given
the Agencies response to the City’s request to stop pumping at wells W434 and W422, it is not
likely that other pumping wells will be permitted to stop pumping in the near future. Well W434
81
will probably be allowed to stop pumping after it has completed five years of pumping. As
shown in Table 1, a budget of $5,000 is estimated for this task in 2001, as a contingency budget
item to pursue future well closures with MPCA.
Task 810 – Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task includes overall planning,
directing, and controlling ENSR’s resources to perform this project. This task also includes
miscellaneous activities throughout the year such as next year’s Sampling Plan (due October 31,
2001), that includes the Site Management Plan and the Quality Assurance Project Plan. ENSR’s
costs for the past 12-month period have been approximately $25,000 for Task 810. The Task
810 budget, shown in Table 1, was developed to reflect the same level of effort in this area. If
the laboratory is able to make improvements to the method that will materially change the
QAPP, then next year’s Sampling Plan may be a more expensive document.
Financial Considerations: Recent correspondence with ENSR estimates the cost for year 2001
work tasks at $101,000. Following is a summary of the year 2001 tasks and estimated costs:
TABLE 1
Proposed 2001 Project Budget
Reilly Site, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Task Estimated Cost, $
Task 100 2000 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2001) $ 18,000
Task 150 2000 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report 8,000
Task 400 Groundwater Monitoring in 2001 30,000
Task 500 Prairie du Chien Aquifer Remedy Implementation 11,000
Subtask 530 W413 Installation $5,000
Subtask 540 W48, W119, W413 Monitoring 5,000
Subtask 550 NPDES Permitting 1,000
Task 600 Laboratory Coordination 5,000
Task 700 Site Closure 5,000
Task 810 Project Management/Miscellaneous 24,000
Total Estimated Project Cost for 2001 $ 101,000
Estimated Remaining Funds from Year 2000 00
Additional Authorization Requested $ 101,000
The year 2001 Water Utility Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant
activities.
Attachments: Contract Extension Agreement
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
82
EXTENSION TO
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 4, 2000, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘City”),
and ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred
to as ‘ENSR”).
1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated December 7, 1998 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement
authorizes the CITY to extend its terms for up to two (2) additional one-year periods.
2. EXTENSION. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the Initial Agreement is
extended for a final one (1) year period terminating on December 31, 2001.
3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES. The Council report dated December 4, 2000, from the City Manager,
describing the year 2001 project tasks and estimated costs, is incorporated herein by
reference.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:________________________________ By:________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Title:_______________________________ and ________________________________
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
83
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 7
Meeting of December 4, 2000
7. Motion to approve a cost sharing agreement with Reilly Industries, Inc.
whereby both parties pay equally for additional groundwater monitoring
required by the state and federal governments.
Background: As discussed in Study Sessions held August 14 and November 27 of this year, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U.S. Environmental Pollution Agency
(EPA), the “Agencies”, believe the potential exists for contaminated water in the Prairie-du-
Chien/Jordan aquifer to migrate towards Edina in the vicinity of Highway 100 near the south
City limits. As a result, they directed the City to perform a “Focused Feasibility Study” (FFS) to
evaluate this situation, generate options, and recommend a solution to prevent this migration.
This study, with a work plan, was completed in June and approved by the Agencies in July.
Three (3) possible solutions were identified in the Study:
1. Re-establish pumping of W48 (Methodist Hospital)
2. Install and pump a replacement well near W48 (possibly at Meadowbrook Golf Course)
3. Pump municipal well SLP6 at Water Treatment Plant #6 (42nd and Zarthan)
Further evaluation showed that pumping SLP6 was the most reasonable alternative to pursue
should migration actually occur. Part of the FFS, which the Agencies agreed to, was to allow the
City to monitor for migration of contamination prior to directing pumping. Monitoring would
consist of installing an additional well (a sentry well) near the vicinity of Morningside and
Browndale with quarterly sampling/testing of that well, SLP6, W48, and W119. The FFS and
implementation costs are estimated at $148,000 with $16,000 annual monitoring costs thereafter,
which comes to an estimated 15-year total of $388,000.
Many of the remedial tasks and associated responsibilities agreed to in “Reilly” settlement
negotiations are documented in the Consent Decree (CD), the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and
a City-Reilly Agreement. The responsibility for this additional work (FFS) has not been
previously assigned, determined, or agreed to by either the City or Reilly Industries, Inc.
Discussions with Reilly officials indicate their willingness to participate with the City in the
costs of the FFS and its implementation. As a general statement, Reilly wishes to stay removed
from daily operations and maintenance activities and prefer to limit their involvement to
participation in capital costs associated with certain tasks. In that regard, staff has negotiated a
cost sharing agreement for the FFS with Reilly at a total estimated cost of $388,000 over the next
15 years. This agreement, currently being approved by Reilly, provides for:
1. City to perform FFS tasks (list attached – Exhibit A)
2. Cost of FFS tasks to be divided equally between the City and Reilly
84
3. Reilly to pay their share as the costs are incurred and billed by the City up to the amount
agreed to ($388,000)
4. Additional work or costs beyond those in the Agreement, shall not be undertaken unless
further agreed to by both parties.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City approve this Agreement as reported herein.
Attachments: Exhibit A to the FFS
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
85
EXHIBIT A
Prairie Du Chein – Jordan Aquifer
Focused Feasibility Study Task List
Task Description Estimated Cost
1) Preparation of Focused Feasibility Study including $ 33,000.00
ENSR’s costs [$28,000], St. Louis Park’s costs, and
meetings with the MPCA
2) Focused Feasibility Study follow-up negotiations and $ 15,000.00
documentation for well installation, determining
action criteria, and changes to the ground water
monitoring program
3) Installation of new sentry well-W413; provide $ 35,000.00
construction report
4) Annual monitoring at wells W413, SLP6, W48, and $240,000.00
W119 for 15 years. (Total of 16 samples per year at
$1,000 per sample for 15 years [after installation of W413]
5) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System $ 50,000.00
permitting (including further meetings with the
watershed district, public meetings, and agency
negotiations)
6) Construction of surface discharge connection $ 15,000.00
at SLP6
TOTAL $388,000.00
86
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 8
Meeting of December 4, 2000
8. Motion to approve the contract with Hennepin Parks to clear and remove
snow from the Southwest LRT trail through the City of St. Louis Park.
Background
The southwest LRT is owned and maintained by Hennepin Parks. However, Hennepin Parks
does not clear or remove snow from their trails during the winter. They will allow cities to plow
snow from their trails under a signed contractual agreement.
Trail Clearing Contract
The City of Hopkins does clear the LRT trail through their City. Last winter, we received several
phone calls from St. Louis Park residents requesting that we clear snow from the trail in St.
Louis Park. As a part of the snow removal policy, staff did recommend that we clear the regional
trail through our City since Hennepin Parks does not. Approving this contract would allow us to
do so for the winter of 2000/2001. We are getting a late start this winter as we just received the
contract from Hennepin Parks. They had only sent contract renewals to municipalities that have
previously removed snow from their trails.
The contract with Hennepin Parks states that the City must repair any damage to the trail done by
the local municipalities while plowing snow. Staff will take precautions to prevent damage due
to our snow removal process.
Future Snow Removal
It does not appear that Hennepin Parks will assume the responsibility to remove snow from the
LRT trail as they do not remove snow from any of their trails. Staff anticipates removing snow
next season on the Hutchinson Spur trail once it has been completed. The City of St. Louis Park
will need to sign a contract annually to remove snow on the LRT and Hutchinson Spur trails.
Attachments: Contract
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
87
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 9
Meeting of December 4, 2000
11. Motion to adopt resolution removing truck and axle load restrictions on
specified MSA routes.
Background: From 1962 through 1981 various Resolutions were passed by the City Council
restricting truck traffic on various streets in the City. This was done for a variety of reasons, but
was basically aimed at prohibiting truck traffic in residential areas. This is acceptable except on
Municipal State Aid (MSA) routes as per Mn/DOT Technical Memorandum No. 94-SA-11,
dated November 30, 1994.
The following tabulation identifies routes and restrictions, which should be removed:
Street
Begin
Restriction
End
Restriction
Type of
Restriction
Restriction
Date
Resolution
No.
Walker St. Texas Ave. W. 37th St. No Trucks 11/17/80 6707
Walker St. Texas Ave. Oregon Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load 6/5/72 4539
W. 38th St. Excelsior Blvd. France Ave. No Trucks 11/19/71 4403
Quentin Ave. Wooddale Ave. Excelsior Blvd. No Trucks 11/17/80 6708
Ottawa Ave. W. 31st St. Minnetonka Blvd. 4 Tons Max. Axle Load 7/7/80 6594
W. Lake St. West City Limits Oregon Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load 10/8/62 2186
Colorado Ave. Cedar Lake Road W. 16th St. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load 11/26/62 2205
Cambridge St. RR Bridge Alabama Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load 3/2/81 6783
Cambridge St. RR Bridge Alabama Ave. No Trucks 11/17/80 6707
Alabama Ave. Excelsior Blvd. W. 37th St. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load 3/2/81 6783
Alabama Ave. Excelsior Blvd. Cambridge St. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load 5/5/75 5275
Alabama Ave. Cambridge St. Alabama Ave. No Trucks 11/17/80 6707
This issue was presented to Council at a Study Session held November 27, 2000. The two (2)
options available to deal with this issue are:
1. Removal of these restriction; or
2. Revocation of the MSA designation on these streets.
Council expressed a preference to remove the restrictions on these routes.
Summary: The resolutions identified above restricting these routes also include restrictions on
other routes in the City. To simplify records management and provide for ease of information
retrieval in the future, the City Clerk recommended all of the above resolutions be rescinded and
one (1) new resolution (attached) restoring all of the existing restrictions on non-MSA streets be
adopted.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
88
RESOLUTION NO. 00-151
RESOLUTION REVISING TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES RESTRICTING TRUCK TRAFFIC
WHEREAS, the following resolutions (6707, 6708, 2205, 4539, 6594, 6783, 4403, 2186,
5275) among others, were adopted by the City to restrict truck traffic in certain areas of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to remove some, but not all of the truck restrictions in these
previously adopted resolutions; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that:
1. Resolution Nos. 6707, 4539, 4403, 6708, 6594, 2186, 2205, 6783, and 5275 be rescinded.
2. Truck restrictions are still necessary on some streets and the Public Works Director is
hereby authorized and directed to install signs restricting the following streets:
Street Termini Restriction
Cambridge St. From Texas Ave. to W. Lake Street No Trucks
Cambridge St. From Alabama Ave. to Wooddale Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load
Goodrich Ave. From Colorado Ave. to Wooddale Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load
Lynn Ave. From Minnetonka Blvd. to Co. Rd. 25 4 Tons Max. Axle Load
Monterey Ave. From Minnetonka Blvd. to Co. Rd. 25 4 Tons Max. Axle Load
Natchez Ave. From Minnetonka Blvd. to Co. Rd. 25 4 Tons Max. Axle Load
Natchez Ave. From Excelsior Blvd. to Vallacher Ave. No Trucks
Oxford St. From Colorado Ave. to Wooddale Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load
Taft Ave. From W. Lake St. to Edgebrook Dr. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load
W. 16th St. From Colorado Ave. to Dakota Ave. 2 Tons Max. Axle Load
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
89
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 10
December 4, 2000
10. Motion to amend Appendix A to Resolution No. 00-108 – Council Rules of
Procedure
There has been some discussion as to whether a quorum can be met for the meeting scheduled
for January 2, 2001 and that has raised questions regarding the annual meeting required by
statute of all Minnesota City Councils.
In reference to that annual meeting, the recently adopted Council Rules of Procedure states:
J. Annual Meeting
The Council will hold its first meeting of the year on the first Monday
in January to:
Establish Council meeting dates for the year;
Designate the official newspaper;
Appoint a mayor pro-tem to perform the duties of the Mayor during
disability or absence, or, in the case of a vacancy in the office of mayor,
until a successor has been appointed or elected
However, a review of the specific language contained in statute suggests that our rules and
procedures should actually state,
J. Annual Meeting
At it’s first regular meeting of each year the Council will:
Establish Council meeting dates for the year;
Designate the official newspaper;
Appoint a mayor pro-tem to perform the duties of the Mayor during
disability or absence, or, in the case of a vacancy in the office of mayor,
until a successor has been appointed or elected
No statutes govern the time, place or frequency of City Council meetings and it is apparent that
the language in the rules as originally adopted does not allow the Council flexibility to schedule
meetings around holiday and travel schedules.
Prepared By: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
90
Item #11 a
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2000
Second Floor Conference Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
____
Present
Commission members: Marc Berg, Herb Isbin, Lynn Littlejohn, Chris Smith and Emily
Wallace-Jackson
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Marc Berg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
July Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Lynn Littlejohn to approve the July
minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
June Agenda: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Chris Smith to approve the agenda with
the addition of a discussion of a speaker request from the League of Women Voters. Motion
passed unanimously.
New Business
Charter Commission: Chris Smith, who also serves on the Charter Commission, explained the
function of the St. Louis Park Charter Commission. The Charter Commission is responsible for
the continuing study of St. Louis Park’s Home Rule Charter, which is essentially a city
constitution. Smith explained that Minnesota has both statutory and charter cities. Statutory
cities may enact only those laws covered by State statute, while charter cities have adopted a
home rule charter giving it broader authority to enact laws or regulations. Smith said the Charter
Commission is currently studying whether the City of St. Louis Park should abolish its Civil
Service Commission. Herb Isbin asked about domestic partner benefits and whether they can be
offered by the City to its employees. Smith responded that the City cannot give itself powers
that are broader than what is in State law.
Diversity Training: Lynn Littlejohn reported that she has compiled a list of local and national
diversity training consultants as well as outreach and recruitment resources. After Littlejohn
meets with Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director, Littlejohn will refine the list to match
the services St. Louis Park is seeking for employee diversity training.
Human Rights Award: Martha McDonell distributed the materials used last year to publicize
the Human Rights Award and solicit nominations. McDonell noted that last year’s materials
91
should be updated and asked for volunteers. Emily Wallace-Jackson offered to update the cover
letter. McDonell then explained the timeline: mailing in mid-September with a deadline before
the October Human Rights Commission meeting, voting at the November commission meeting,
and award(s) presentation at a December City Council meeting. Members agreed to have an
updated packet ready for mailing in mid-September. Herb Isbin requested that the Human
Rights Commission play a larger role in the presentation.
Commissioners also discussed options to make the community aware of the award such as
mailing out information and placing materials in the library and other public areas. Lynn
Schwartz agreed to place an article in the upcoming issue of the city newsletter Park Perspective
and send a news release to the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor about three weeks before the
nomination deadline.
Block Captains: Herb Isbin reported that he and Martha McDonell met with Debra Strege, the
Police Department’s new community liaison, and Sergeant Lorin Kramer to discuss the mission
of block captains and how the Human Rights Commission could interact with the department’s
300 block captains. Strege told them that she would be willing to place a short article from the
Human Rights Commission in the next issue of the Block Captain’s newsletter. The article—
which is due September 1—could cover what block captains can do to help in the event of a
bias/hate crime or to encourage residents to report incidents. It might also state what residents
can do to promote diversity or publicize the availability of the parenting booklet. Herb Isbin will
call Kristen Siegesmund about writing the article for the block captain’s newsletter.
Herb Isbin also reported that he asked Kramer if the department’s bias/hate crime form could be
amended to have a box for officers to check that asks, “Did officer tell victim about the Human
Rights Commission?”
Community Partners: Marc Berg reported that he has heard back from only two organizations
(Out Front and the Jewish Community Relations Council) in his effort to update the
commission’s resource list. Berg will continue working on this project and will report back at
the September meeting.
Speaker Request: The League of Women Voters has asked for a speaker to talk about the
Human Rights Commission and also wants to inform the commission about the league’s efforts
to assist new immigrants. Emily Wallace-Jackson and Marc Berg offered to speak with the
League, and Martha McDonell offered to be a back-up if the commissioners are unavailable.
McDonell suggested that commissioners bring the commission’s mid-year report and brochure to
the league meeting.
Old Business
City Council Mid-Year Meeting: Commissioners discussed their August 14 mid-year report
meeting with the St. Louis Park City Council. Marc Berg updated the council on the
commission’s response to hate/bias crimes, participation in a League of Women Voters panel,
attendance at the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions training program,
participation at the Children First Ice Cream Social, and its meetings with Sergeant Lorin
92
Kramer, City Manager Charlie Meyer and Deputy City Manager Clint Pires. The commission
also shared an outline of its work plan for the remainder of the year. Herb Isbin asked that the
mid-year report be placed in the commission’s scrapbook and records.
Berg reported that the City Council asked commissioners about its involvement with the School
District’s ethnographic study and involvement with the League of Women Voters immigration
outreach effort. Councilmember Jim Brimeyer asked that the commission become involved in
efforts to prepare immigrants for the workforce, and councilmember Ron Latz asked if the
commission is targeting any particular neighborhood or apartment complex where immigrants
are concentrated. Berg said the City Council appeared to be willing to fund commission efforts to
help new immigrants.
Phone Line: Martha McDonell reported there were no calls to the phone line. She said she will
update the recording with new information about the Human Rights Award nomination process.
Lynn Littlejohn suggested that the commission discuss at a future meeting whether the phone
line is effective and is achieving its purpose.
Cole Parking Letter: Martha McDonnell reported that she followed up on the letter from
Thomas Cole concerning a parking dispute. Cole had claimed that the handicapped resident’s
aide received a ticket for parking on the street because he could not use the driveway which was
needed for a step van. McDonell found that the letter was not entirely clear in its portrayal of the
situation. Cole is the attendant who lives in the house and owns the van. Cole’s neighbors have
complained about the parking on the street and the eyesore it creates. McDonell also reported
that a police officer did meet with Cole and offered several suggestions on how to park on his
double-wide driveway or in his two-car garage in order to comply with the existing parking
ordinance.
After a discussion of the situation, commission members agreed that the commission should
respond to Cole’s letter despite the fact that it was misleading. Members agreed that the
commission will send Cole a friendly letter thanking him for his letter and stating that it is the
commission’s understanding that the police are willing to work with Cole to find a solution.
Chris Smith agreed to draft a letter for the commission’s review.
Reports
Emily Wallace-Jackson reported that health considerations may prevent her from being a fully
active commissioner in the coming months.
Set Agenda For Next Meeting
Members agreed to add the following items to the September agenda:
Human rights award
Diversity training
Community partners
Phone line resource list
League of Women Voters speaker
Phone Line analysis
93
Posters for city hall conference rooms.
Adjournment
Moved by Lynn Littlejohn and seconded by Herb Isbin to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.
With no further business, the commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
Recording Secretary
94
Item # 11 b
November 22, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABRAMS, JOSEPH INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 5.52
ALEX, HEATHER M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 137.86
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 8.35
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL
S
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
162.25
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.99
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
2,541.94
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 823.69
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.12
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE
LABORATOR
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES GENERAL SUPPLIES 377.70
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOC
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 129.75
BJORGAARD, DEB OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.93
BKBM ENGINEERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 979.97
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 207.24
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,097.50
BUCHMAN PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 270.00
BUSKEY, JENNIFER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 130.58
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 772.05
CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
I
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
3,250.00
CHAMBERLAIN, HAL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.75
CHEROKEE POWER EQUIPMENT CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,639.93
CHRISTENSON, JEREMY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CITY OF ST PAUL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 680.00
CLAUDIA JOHNSTON-MADISON OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 85.09
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CRILEY, KATHI L GENERAL SUPPLIES 149.04
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 56.90
DARTNELL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 19.45
DECISION RESOURCES LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,250.00
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 99.24
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,250.00
ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00
EMERGENCY LITE SERVICE
CENTER
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,279.57
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.38
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
10,428.49
95
ENSR CONSULTING &
ENGINEERING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,972.59
F.F. JEDLICKI INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 13,552.76
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
COMPANY
EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 536.55
FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00
FRANKLIN COVEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 60.45
GARDNER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 909.79
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,487.56
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOLDEN VALLEY SUPPLY
COMPANY
BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 8.58
GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 220.70
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 28.80
HABERMAN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 90.00
HENN CO INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COMPUTER SERVICES 293.85
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,560.00
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80.76
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 252.57
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,273.04
IBCO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 140.00
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
28
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 37,400.00
IPMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 380.00
IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.00
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.43
JAMES SWANSON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
JOSEPH CATERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 461.40
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 51.75
KRUGE-AIR INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 89.00
LAKELAND ENGINEERING
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT PARTS 106.23
LANGLOIS, JEANNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 350.00
M/A ASSOCIATES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.86
MAAPT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 135.00
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 216.11
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 294.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,122.59
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.91
METRO SALES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 67.10
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 46.95
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 123.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 245.49
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
18,114.43
MEYER, CHARLES MEETING EXPENSE 69.24
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 13.75
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 9,983.03
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.12
96
MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 20.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN PREVENTION RESOURCE
CENTER
GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.00
MOTOROLA GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.77
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,427.68
NANCY WAGNER UNREALIZED REVENUE 126.35
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 282.02
NATL RECREATION & PARKS
ASSOC
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 215.00
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 251.57
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,375.28
OESTREICH, MARK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 282.54
OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,441.98
ORTNER, MARK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 63.71
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PAINE MASONRY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,100.00
PARK VALLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 320.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 94.93
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 278.98
PETERSON, SACHA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 315.60
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 28.30
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
5,415.93
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 145.97
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 65.97
RILEY DETTMANN & KELSEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00
ROCKHURST COLLEGE
CONTINUING E
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 145.00
S & T LAWN SERVICE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 766.80
SAM'S CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES 568.55
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 75.00
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 452.58
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,071.33
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 2,500.00
ST PAUL FESTIVAL & HERITAGE FO UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.16
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,974.48
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,646.53
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 124.00
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 580.86
SURVIVALINK GENERAL SUPPLIES 207.60
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.44
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 455.00
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1.06
THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 122.16
TURKINGTON, ARLENE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40.40
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96
97
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,363.42
UNITED RENTALS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 695.88
VOSS LIGHTING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,128.60
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 643.31
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
174,014.92
WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,668.75
WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 153.36
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 337.25
ZEP MANUFACTURING CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
321.51
ZIPSORT POSTAGE 149.12
357,243.74
December 1, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 924.47
ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2.62
AMERICAN INSTITUTIONAL
SUPPLY
SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 131.72
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS
ASSOCIAT
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 112.00
ANGELLA ROGALLA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78.00
ANNE SEELING UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 400.00
AQUILA PRIMARY CENTER UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 383.51
AUDIO BY DESIGN GENERAL CUSTOMERS 290.85
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BENILDE-ST MARGARETS SCHOOL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 7,500.00
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BOB BARKER COMPANY INC SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 77.96
BOY SCOUT TROOP #369 UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 300.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 262.35
CAROL EVERS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10.00
CITY ENGRS ASSOC OF MINNESOTA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN
HENNE
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,921.00
COMM CENTER RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 166.14
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CUB FOODS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
590.73
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 31,853.09
DELI DOUBLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 132.48
DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00
ELAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 624.75
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
6,824.53
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FALCON ASSOCIATES INC OTHER ADVERTISING 148.50
98
FERDA OLSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00
FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN GENERAL SUPPLIES 192.61
FLORENCE MOXHAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 75.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 488.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,046.88
GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS 69.93
HACH CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.35
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
7,419.87
HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 211.67
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
210.07
I C B O GENERAL SUPPLIES 119.55
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.51
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 89.10
INTL SECURITY PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.93
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 898.96
JOHN J. MORGAN COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 499.25
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.47
KNOLLWOOD BEVERAGE
CATERING
CONCESSION SUPPLIES 196.93
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 61.01
LAKELAND ENGINEERING
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT PARTS 58.44
LAKESHORE LEARNING CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.07
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 30,405.89
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 294.00
METRO SALES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.36
METROCALL TELEPHONE 7.23
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
230,280.00
MICHELLE RANELLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 70.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 269.27
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MOST HOLY TRINITY UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00
MOTOROLA GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.18
MTGF CONFERENCE MEETING EXPENSE 125.00
N I G P SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 156.00
NANCY BERLIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85.00
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH
WOM
UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 300.00
NESSA LEE LAIDERMAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 57.50
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 60,212.97
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 146.44
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PATRICIA PLOOF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150.00
PENNY MOLDO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 72.50
PERFORMANCE OFFICE PAPERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 111.95
PEWAG INCORPORATED GENERAL SUPPLIES 522.33
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.08
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
99
ROTO-ROOTER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
405.00
RUBY ANDREASEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SHARON LARSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 82.50
SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 486.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL SMALL TOOLS 202.25
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,663.50
ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 500.00
ST LOUIS PARK SOCCER ASSOCIATI UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 1,500.00
ST. LOUIS PARK DOLLARS FOR SCH UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 1,000.00
ST. LOUIS PARK SCHOOLS UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 250.00
ST. LOUIS PARK TRANSPORTATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.00
STALLION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 899.93
SUSAN VALENTINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.00
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 574.00
TKDA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,860.00
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 0.74
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 1,144.31
UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 312.86
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,593.72
VOELKER, STACY M PETTY CASH 200.00
WESTSIDE 4-H CLUB UNREALIZED GRANT REVENUE 350.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,595.00
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 344.02
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 86.99
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 74.38
430,707.15
IMMEDIATE PAYS
December 1, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
BENSON, MAXENE L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 542.25
CHRIS HINRICHS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.13
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11,763.51
JOHNSON, CAROL J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.50
MN DEPT. OF HUMAN RIGHTS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 250.00
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE - POST-TAX 48,185.16
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE - POST-TAX 4,631.27
POSTMASTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,964.46
SEL MOR DISTR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123.19
WESTPORT PROPERTIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 296.25
68,861.72