HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/12/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 18, 2000
7:10 p.m.
7:00 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Taiwan Delegation Recognition
b. Human Rights Award
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of December 4, 2000
b. Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2000
c. Study Session Minutes of July 24, 2000
d. Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2000
e. Study Session Minutes of October 23, 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
2
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. Motion to waive readings of resolutions and ordinances
2. Motion to adopt a resolution amending Special Use Permit and granting an
extension to August 31, 2001 for Grovew Academy, 3200 Highway 100.
3. Motion to Approve Contract for the Administration of the Blackstone
Neighborhood Grant/Deferred Loan Program with the Center for Energy and
Environment effective 1/01/01
3. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Cable Television Advisory Commission Minutes of October 19, 2000
b. Vendor Claims
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the amount of $145,000 to repay
MSA approved construction costs.
6. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a
fire sprinkler system at 5727 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner.
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
Due to the significant level of public interest in the Park
Commons Development, Item 7a will be considered prior
to the public hearings on this agenda.
5a. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling
Premises Permit for St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball Association at
Texa-Tonka Lanes, located at 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the resolution
authorizing renewal.
5b. Year 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Public hearing to inform the public and allow for citizen input regarding the Police
Department budget and the relation of that budget to Local Law Enforcement Block
3
Grant fund disbursement
As a recipient of a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program award, the St.
Louis Park Police Department is requesting disbursement of $19,960.00 in grant
funds from the U.S. Department of Justice to be used for career development
training for department personnel
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve grant fund
award.
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. First Reading of Amendment to Zoning Map to Change the Zoning from C-2
General Commercial, R-C High Density Residential, and R-3 Two-Family
Residential to M-X Mixed-Use, R-C High-Density Residential and R-3 Two
Family Residential for Comprehensive Plan Consistency for Park Commons
East.
Case No.00-60-Z
East of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior Boulevard
to the southern portion of Wolfe Park
Recommended
Action:
Approve First Reading of Zoning Map Amendment to be
adopted contingent upon associated Comprehensive Plan
amendments being approved by the Metropolitan Council and set
Second Reading for January 16, 2001
7b. Resolution Approving Oak Park Area Master Plan.
This report considers the approval of the Master Plan recommended by the Task
Force for the Oak Park Village, Oak Hill Park, and Walker Park areas.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Oak Hill Area
Parks Master Plan.
7c. Amendment To Railroad Blocking Agreement
This action amends the agreement entered into between the Cities of Hopkins,
Minnetonka and St. Louis Park, Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company and
Canadian Pacific Railway in December 1999 to alleviate rail blocking activities in
the three cities. The amendment would allow the parties to change the specific
blocking procedures spelled out in the agreement through a memorandum of
understanding.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the
contract amendment and to authorize the City Manager to
4
negotiate and execute memoranda of agreement establishing
blocking procedures.
7d. Adopt 2001 Budget, 2000 Revised Budget and 2001 Property Tax Levy
This is the final step in the 2001 budget process.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution adopting the 2001 budget and
Revised 2000 budget and to approve resolution approving the
2001 Property tax levy.
7e. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 11-1003 and 11-1004 of the
St. Louis Park Municipal Code related to False Alarms
This revision will remove fees from the false alarm ordinance and allow fees to be
set by resolution.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
January 15,2000.
7f. Request by Edina Development Company for a Major amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit for site plan, tree replacement and landscaping
changes and a variance for reduced bufferyard for Excelsior Townhomes
Case Nos. 00-45-CUP and 00-46-VAR
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for
reduced bufferyard along east lot line.
• Motion to adopt a resolution amending previous Resolution
No. 98-97 and granting a major amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions in the
resolution.
7g. First reading of miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to
the reduction of the 2nd story setbacks for property in the R-1, R-2, and R-3
Use District, clarification of the retail sales and showroom land use definitions,
issuance of permits for properties with existing non-conformities, setbacks for
certain commercial and industrial uses from residentially zoned properties,
clarification of wall deviations for architectural design, notice requirements
for Comprehensive Plan land use and text amendments, and setting the public
hearing at Planning Commission only for Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Case # 00-61-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to pass 1st reading of the ordinance amendments and set
reading for the City Council meeting on January 16, 2001
5
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
6
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 4, 2000
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Sue
Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); City Clerk
(Ms. Reichert); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening); City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of November 20, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following changes.
Page 7, Item 6a, Paragraph 1, change “ordinance modifications are approved” to
“ordinance modifications were recommended”.
Page 11, Item 6a, Paragraph 4, add “Mr. Aaron agreed to confirm this agreement in
writing”.
Page 9, Item 6a, Paragraph 5 and 6, delete “and should not be approved”.
b. Study Session Special Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented with the following change.
Page 13, Item 1, Paragraph 5, change “Police and Fire Civil Service Commissions” to
Police and Fire Departments”.
c. Special Meeting Minutes of November 20, 2000
The minutes were approved as presented.
d. Study Session Minutes of November 27, 2000
7
The minutes were approved with the following change.
Page 19, Item 2, Paragraph 3, add “Councilmember Latz was particularly interested in
feedback from any neighborhood organizations or other community groups”.
Page 19, Item 2, Paragraph 4, add “Councilmember Santa also discussed the concerns of
the neighborhood association for the upper park about the conditions of the
buildings and grounds which need to be upgraded.
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 Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the agenda. The motion passed 6-0
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. Waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2. Motion to approve second reading of Ordinance amending Ordinance 2170-00 to
vacate a potion 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
$30,4000.00
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 of $19,598.25 and Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. in the
amount of $6,238.51.
8
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. Human Rights Commission Minutes of August 16, 2000
12. Vendor Claims
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
Cindy Reichert, City Clerk presented a brief staff report and recommended approval.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve the license. The motion passed 6-0.
5b. Public Hearing on the 2001 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy
Jean McGann, Finance Director presented an overview of the City’s Budget and Bruce
Stepnick, City Assessor gave a presentation on Property Values and Trends and
recommended approval.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Resident, David Young asked if the rate would remain the same from last year.
Another resident present questioned his large property value increase.
Mr. Stepnick stated that his home was in a classification rate that had a large increase.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that St. Louis Park was experiencing an average
increase of 13% and was indicative of what is happening in the market place.
Ms. McGann stated that the rate would increase slightly from 19.6 to 10.4.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
9
No action was taken.
5c. Competitive Cable TV System Franchises Public Hearing
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to continue
the public hearing to January 16, 2001. The motion passed 6-0.
5d. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan – Plan By Neighborhood Chapter –
Minikahda Vista Neighborhood
Tom Harmening, Director of Community Development presented a staff report and
recommended adding the underlined language to the Minikahda Vista “Specific
Development Guidelines” text in the Plan By Neighborhood Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan: No redevelopment of single-family homes guided as low-density
residential is proposed or envisioned.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan relating to the Minnikahda Vista
Neighborhood to clarify that no redevelopment of single family houses guided low
density residential is proposed or envisioned subject to Metropolitan Council approval.
The motion passed 6-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve summary resolution and authorize publication. The motion passed 6-0.
5e. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Redevelopment Chapter
to modify certain land use designations and redevelopment concept plans for the
Park Commons East area.
Tom Harmening, Director of Community Development presented a staff report which
included an update of the plan for Park Commons. He 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. He explained that the proposed heights and densities were consistent with
Livable Communities and other Comprehensive Plan principles and the anticipated
traffic acceptable. He stated that Planning Commission and staff recommended
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.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
10
Gail Dorfman, 4200 Forest Road, stated that the outcome of Vision St. Louis Park was
that the City really needed a core or town center that helps identify the community. The
area would be a place where people can gather, recreate and have a mix of uses that
would be residential, commercial and meet needs for arts and recreation and public
space in the community. She stated that she felt the development of this area and the
livable community goals that this development embodies is at the heart of the
community’s wishes. From the beginning, there was also an understanding that this
was going to evolve over time and she believed it would continue to evolve over time
with public participation. She stated that she shared a dream with other members of the
community that when her kids got out of high school and they sold their family home,
there would be town center with move-up housing available.
David Payne, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard, an owner of Al’s Liquor for 29 years, stated
that 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. He
would like to live in this type of development and commended the City for their
wonderful work and commitment to their work. He heard that TOLD is an excellent
developer and would do a good job on this project.
Rosemarie Zipoy, 3716 Inglewood Avenue, stated that she was in favor of the project.
She was excited about the marvelous design of the project and she was proud of St.
Louis Park for attempting the project and that it was a wonderful model for other
suburbs in the region. She commended the City for their efforts to include public
participation. She was in favor of the higher density apartments, but disappointed that
there were few units that could be considered affordable unit. She was concerned with
increased traffic, but had great faith that the City would address these problems if they
possibly to arise.
Steve Buffington, 3800 Huntington, was present on behalf of the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood and the Government Issues Task Force. He presented a document for the
record entitled “Presentation Opposition to the Approval of the Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan” that explained the neighborhoods position and concerns with the
proposed plan. He stated that the neighborhood was in favor of a proportionate good
development on the Park Center East area and do not stand in opposition to
development, but stand in opposition to the updated plan that was proposed for the
reasons outlined in the document. He explained the current litigation on an identical
issue in the City of Richfield and that public support for this level of development was
not there based on the petitions included in the document presented.
Ernest Feil, 3914 Ottawa Avenue South, stated that overall he was in favor of the
project, but he believed it the increased density is too much for that small of a space.
He was concerned with the way Natchez was going to be reconfigured and would result
in increased traffic into the neighborhood. He recommended a left turn only access on
11
the median on Excelsior Boulevard so there wouldn’t be any cross traffic into the
neighborhood. He believed the drawings were grossly out of scale and believed the
proposed densities would dwarf the streets and parking is inadequate. He was also
concerned that no commercial antennas or satellites be allowed to be put on top of any
those buildings.
Cynthia Latham, 3944 Kipling Avenue, member of Minikahda Task Force, stated that
the task force was in favor of a development, but objected to the density of the updated
plan proposed. She stated that the neighborhood residents believe they were never kept
informed of how dense this project was becoming over time and presented the
following chronology of how the density had changed overtime which she provided to
Councilmember Nelson upon his request.
October, 1996 – Original Charrette - The background notes indicate the charrette will
define the development components. The feel of the project will be similar to areas
such as Linden Hills, Centennial Lakes, or 50th and France. Attendees that were
interviewed such as John Stonehouse indicated that there was never the impression
given of the type of density that was not being proposed. Two to three story buildings
were envisioned.
December 1996 and January 1997 – Park Perspective article entitled “Town Center
Design takes Shape” is accompanied by two and three story drawings.
December 8, 1997 – City Council Study Session Minutes, “Discussions focused on
development of the first phase encompassing approximately 2000 square feet of
redevelopment area. Councilmember Latz asked why three stories seemed to be the
accepted height of buildings in the area and questioned why we did not consider taller
structures”.
January 25, 1998 – City Council Study Session Minutes, “Preliminary master plan for
Park Commons Phase I was presented. Mayor Dorfman asked if there was any concern
about the scale as compared to the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. Ms. Jeremiah
stated that redevelopment of that area under the current zoning limits was three stories,
so this plan would be consistent. She indicated that higher density would be possible,
but construction cost would make it prohibitive”.
February, 1998 – Park Perspective, “The market study found that private market place
can support about 100,000 square feet of retail shops, restaurants and offices and
another 100,000 square feet of high quality apartment in this area. Initial plans call for
high quality, architecturally interesting three story structures. Creating a town green is
probably the most visible indicator of the scope of change planned by the area. Without
the town green, any redevelopment would simply be substituting new buildings for old
ones. The town green is what will change the dynamics of the area.
12
July, 1998 – Barton Ashman Traffic Study for Park Commons East, The assumptions
they were told to use were 215 rental units, 38 town homes and 240 square feet of office
and retail.
February 8, 1999 – City Council Study Session Minutes, “Mr. Harmening explained
that the draft master plan by Avalon Bay which was reviewed by the City Council in
January proposed 680 residential units which is a level significantly denser than the
original park commons concept plan. He pointed out that the result of this proposed
increase in the number of housing units would cause a reduction in the amount of office
space proposed for the development and a corresponding reduction in the number
daytime use parking spaces that could be shared with evening and weekend park uses.
He also suggested that that the roadway capacity may not be able to support this level of
density. Councilmember Sanger pointed out that the Vision St. Louis Park goals clearly
stated that St. Louis Park did not need more rental housing”.
May 5, 1999 – Image sketches are drawn by Avalon Bay and they portray almost
exclusively two story buildings.
August 30, 1999 – The execution copy of the preliminary development agreement states
“Include the following range of uses. Up to 80,000 square feet of office space, retail
service and restaurant, 350 to 500 residential units including town homes and 10 work
units, and up to 48 for sale town homes.
November, 1999 – Minnikahda Vista Neighborhood asked for an update on the
proposed development as a result of a neighborhood meeting. The City informs are
government interest group that all buildings will be four stories with 600 mixed income
housing units.
February 7, 2000 – The EAW was approved. The Minnikahda Vista Task Force asked
that it not be approved. TOLD’s plan does not fit with the EAW that included a
building height two to four stories.
September 11, 2000 – City Council Study Session Minutes, “TOLD reviews the latest
proposal to have in excess of 700 residential units to help decrease the financial gap.
Janet Jeremiah refers the Council to a document entitled, St. Louis Park Town Center
Building Phases, as justification that 700 housing units in Park Commons is consistent
with what came out of the charrette, but this was for the entire Park Commons area and
not for Park Commons East”.
John D. McCain, 1762 Delaware Avenue, Vice President of Belt Line Industrial Park,
commended the City for their efforts to help develop the area and was in support of the
proposed plan.
Mike Sixel, 4205 Utica Avenue South, President of Browndale Neighborhood
Association, stated that the Neighborhood was in support of the project and believed it
13
was very important for the City. As a resident, he desired to be able to walk to nearby
shopping and restaurants and live in a live and viable area.
Jim Rhodes, 3408 Rhode Island, stated that he was in support of the project. He was
aware of the concerns, but was confident that the City would get them worked out. He
believed that it was important to continue to renew St. Louis Park with development
that benefits the community and makes it a wonderful place to live.
Ernest Feil, 3914 Ottawa Avenue South, was concerned about the amount of actual
green open space available on the town green and asked for clarification of the width of
the town green.
With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development, stated that the 56-60 feet town
green was from inside curb to inside curb, but the specific design (hardscape, facilities,
and landscaping) for the town green has not yet been determined.
Councilmember Latz asked what proportion of the proposed rental housing would be
considered convertible in the future to condominiums if it was determined that the
market would support a higher proportion of condominiums.
Bob Cunningham, Vice President of Development, TOLD Development stated that
about 53% of the total units in current site plan could be convertible. He explained the
operating expenses and carry costs as it related to the current market. He stated that the
projected rental rates for Phase 3 were approximately $1.50 a foot.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the chronology presented illustrated the vitality of
the plan and that the plan has been a series of compromises, some of which were driven
by economics. She believed the plan had too many rentals and not enough owner
occupied and she desired more green space, but would support the updated plan.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the legal issue has and will continue to be
discussed, but believed to compare this proposal to the Richfield litigation was not
accurate.
Mayor Jacobs concurred with Councilmember Brimeyer on the legal issue. He
explained that the City has set out to do something different and there has been a
process. He was confident that this would be a successful project and the problems
would be managed as the City and community moved forward together.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt
the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use map and Redevelopment
Chapter contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval and approve resolution
summary and authorize publication. The motion passed 6-0.
14
6. Requests and Communications from the Public
6a. Approval of 2001 Liquor License Renewals
Cindy Reichert, City Clerk presented a staff report and recommended approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve renewal of licenses. The motion passed 6-0.
6b. Approval of 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program
Charlie Meyer, City Manager presented a brief staff report and recommended approval.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the Parks and Recreation program was
underfunded and suggested a review the Technology 2002 piece.
Mr. Meyer stated that the Parks and Recreation link still needed to be completed.
Councilmember Latz commended the staff for their work in preparing the Capital
Improvement Program.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Program. The motion passed 6-0.
7. Requests and Communications from the Public - None
8. Board and Committees - None
9. Communications
From the City Manager - None
From the Mayor – None
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
15
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
October 9, 2000
The meeting convened at 8:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Robert Young.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Engineering
Superintendent (Mr. Moore), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Planning
and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Civic Cable Television Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), and
City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. MnDot Project on Highway Trunk No 7 Scheduled for 2001
Paul Kachelmyer, Minnesota Department of Transportation, gave a review of the proposed
improvements to Trunk Highway(TH) 7 scheduled for 2001 construction. He indicated that they
would like to widen shoulders, lengthen turn lanes, construct concrete barriers in certain
medians, and work on curbs and gutters.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the intersection of Ottawa and TH 7 would be included. Mr.
Kachelmyer responded that it would not, the ownership changes at Hwy. 100 from state to
county.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked how this project would fit in with the trail plan. Mr. Moore
explained that staff from MnDot and the City had gone over the pedestrian and trail crossings for
each intersection.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the medians are not wide enough for bikes and inquired how
long the project will take. Mr. Kachelmyer replied they expected it to be a three month project.
2. Park Commons East Update
Ms. Jeremiah reported that the City had entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with
TOLD which included several deadlines for work to be completed. One of those deadlines was
to turn in a feasibility analysis. That deadline was delayed but TOLD has submitted cost
estimates, phasing, financing gap analysis, number and type of housing/retail units, and
suggested modifications to the site plan. Staff would like to receive feedback regarding the
feasibility analysis and potential changes to the Park Commons East concept plan.
Mr. Cunningham of TOLD presented slides depicting similar developments around the country
as well as the concept drawings of the Park Commons development.
16
Councilmember Sanger inquired about housing opportunities in the development. Mr.
Cunningham stated that there are twenty different housing styles ranging from studios to large
units. He added that homestead laws do not generate enough tax increment financing to do the
project with more owned housing. Councilmember Sanger was not sure if the project could be
supported with that amount of rental housing. Mr. Cunningham said rental units can be
converted into condominiums in the future and are set up that way. He added that rental is
absorbed faster in the market.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the project income and revenue are based on square footage
income and inquired if the numbers are dependable. Mr. Harmening replied that the numbers are
aggressive.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the project was originally design-orientated but has now
become economically driven. He understood the economic need for rental housing but preferred
not to have so much of it in the project. Ms. Jeremiah offered to show a comparison between the
original charrette figures and the current figures in terms of rental and owner occupied housing.
The phasing of the project has changed but the overall totals are consistent with the original
charrette plan.
Mr. Cunningham stated that they are still trying to close the financing gap but indicated they will
be able to do so as they go along. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired if the acquisition of
Bally’s would help to close the gap. Mr. Cunningham replied that it would not and thought
shared parking may help.
Councilmember Young stated his understanding that apartments are very marketable and in line
with the charrette figures. He added that the loss of development on the south side of Excelsior
Blvd. also dictated change. Councilmember Young felt that the City has already invested a lot of
money into this project and he felt they were on the right track.
Councilmember Sanger asked if increased building heights would help to close the financing
gap. Mr. Cunningham replied that it would be helpful if the six story buildings were eight
stories. Councilmember Sanger hoped that TOLD would consider that option and increase the
owner occupied buildings. Mr. Cunningham replied that they would do some research on it.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the success rate in other similar developments in regards to
for-sale live/work units and Mr. Cunningham replied that the response has been good.
Councilmember Nelson was not sure if he agreed with the six story buildings and said he needed
to be convinced before eight story buildings are considered. He would like to see a shade
analysis showing the impact of the shadows cast from the buildings. Councilmember Nelson
also stated his concern for the trails and character of the park as a result of the project. Other
concerns of his are the number of rental and owner occupied units and the town green. Mr.
Cunningham replied that the trail is planned to link retail business to the park.
Councilmember Young inquired about the next steps and hoped TOLD would do more numbers
analysis of rental and for-sale housing, shading, the park edge, and building height.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that a sense of community could be achieved at the town green
not just by making it wide, but the same result could be achieved through creative design.
17
Councilmember Sanger was interested in the amount of space needed to accommodate a farmer’s
market or art fair.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff will meet at the site prior to the next study session and will also
organize a neighborhood meeting. She indicated that they would hold off on scheduling a public
hearing for now.
Mr. Harmening indicated that he wanted more clarification on housing and building height.
Council discussed various concepts for changing the mix of rental and for-sale housing. Mr.
Cunningham stated that they have created a solution that would allow the development process
to commence. However, changes will have monetary effects that may not be acceptable. He
added that owned housing would come at the expense of the financing gap.
Council directed the developers and staff to work together to achieve a better mix of rental and
owned housing. They would also like to see Parks and Recreation provide their input on trails
and the town green programming.
Mr. Harmening said that a phenomenal amount of work has been done in ten weeks and the
developer is to be commended. Council agreed and thanked them for their hard work.
3. Texa Tonka Study
Tim McComb who had worked on the market study for Texa Tonka was present at the meeting.
Ms. Erickson passed out the summary of findings to the Council. Mr. McComb stated that the
future success in Texa Tonka is in service. He indicated that some retail would be acceptable but
the main attraction should not solely be retail. Texa Tonka needs a strategy to increase the tenant
quality, therefore enabling the center to improve attractiveness and the health of the buildings.
Councilmember Santa stated that the perception of the neighbors is that there is too much
parking for the property. Mr. McComb replied that some of the parking would need to be
retained but not all of it is neccessary.
Councilmember Sanger asked about strategies to jump-start renovations so new tenants will be
attracted to the area. Mr. McComb replied that they needed to attract higher paying tenants.
Mr. Harmening discussed removing some of the areas that are not needed. He felt that a
workable renovation process would have the City as a partner.
Mr. McComb reported that he is currently working with Mr. Fine, owner and manager of Texa
Tonka Shopping Center, to develop a strategy for renewal.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be a potential conflict of interest. Mr. McComb
replied they would need to convince the owner of the center how the value can be improved with
the influx of money from him along with possible public assistance such as low interest
commercial rehabilitation loans.
18
Councilmember Young asked if Mr. McComb could move forward with the contract while
Council waits to see what will develop. Mr. McComb replied that he can and conflict would not
arise if Council asked for public input for improvements in the area.
Ms. Erickson stated that Mr. McComb’s work with the City has been completed and therefore no
conflict would result.
Councilmember Santa would like to go forward with public improvements.
Councilmember Sanger did not want to move forward with any improvements until a
commitment has been made from the owner of the shopping center. Councilmember Nelson
agreed. Councilmember Young felt they should move forward. Councilmembers Brimeyer and
Santa agreed.
Ms. Jeremiah offered to include more property owners. Mr. Harmening suggested that the task
force for this project could work similarly to the Blackstone neighborhood project.
4. Competitive Cable TV System Applications Status
Mr. Pires gave a presentation on the cable TV franchise applications that have been received for
Everest Connections Corporations and Wide Open West LLC (WOW). Everest submitted its
application on September 25 and seeks many modifications to the current franchise ordinance.
Wide Open West submitted their application on October 2 and appears general with respect to
the franchise ordinance.
Mr. Pires informed Council of staffs’ concern over the proximity to the deadline that the
applications were filed. He also discussed Time Warner’s concern in regards to Minnesota State
Statute 238.08 which limits granting of a cable franchise in areas with an existing franchise.
Staff proposes to complete the analysis of the two companies. Further recommendation will be
given after analysis by legal counsel is provided. Council will receive a full report at a later date.
5. Communications
Council reviewed criteria used to naming and renaming of parks.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
19
Item # 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
July 24, 2000
The meeting convened at 7: 43 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert
Young, and Mayor Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning Coordinator (Ms.
Erickson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen),
Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Public Works
Administrative Supervisor (Mr. Roth), Grounds and Natural Resources Manager (Mr. Vaughan),
and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Off-Leash Dog Area Proposed by the Minneapolis Park Board
Representatives from the Minneapolis Park Board and ROMP were in attendance. A
representative of ROMP explained how the process was completed in investigating the
possibility of an off-leash dog park for the City of Minneapolis. She gave results of the survey
they had conducted and told how the site was selected. She indicated that four sites had been
researched, two of which have received preliminary approval. She felt that success is in having
an advocacy group to act as stewards of the park.
A site illustration and layout was presented for the site that is located within the Cities of
Minneapolis, Edina, and St. Louis Park. Councilmember Nelson inquired about the legal
relationship of the parties. He also was interested to know if the City has already approved the
land use for the park and was informed that a lease will be written with contingencies and check
in dates.
A representative from Minneapolis Animal Control stated that a critical element is in creation of
a permit system that would require both residents and non-residents to purchase a permit. The
fees from the permits would supply revenue for maintenance and operation of the park, and
ensure compliance with the rules of the park while establishing expectations. Councilmember
Sanger asked if all the criteria set by St. Louis Park would be able to be met and was informed
that most points would be met. Council discussed licensure.Councilmember Santa inquired if
permits would allow permit holders to use all off leash facilities in Minneapolis. Mr. Vaughan
was interested in who would staff the facility.
Councilmember Nelson would like to see the Park Board hold a meeting with the Minnekahda
Vista neighborhood and wants to be sure the fence for the park follows the current boundary of
the park. He stated his concern over the lack of cooperation they have received from the
Minneapolis Park Board.
20
Councilmember Sanger agreed with the idea of the neighborhood meeting but hoped that
everyone would keep in mind that the park is for all citizens. Mr. Vaughan indicated that he
would coordinate a neighborhood meeting and prepare the required ordinance changes.
2. Transit Study
Mr. Harmening introduced Arlene McCarthy, the new Director of Service Development for
Metro Transit. Ms. McCarthy and representatives from Metro Transit gave a presentation
indicating the need for changes in the system , proposed solutions and the next steps in the
implementation process.
Councilmember Sanger asked for a verbal description of the service areas to be deleted and
discussion took place on the specific areas that were marked for change or deletion.
Ms. McCarthy stated that all of the fleet would be handicap accessible by 2003.
Councilmember Santa felt that the success of the plan would be the timing of the connections.
3. Perspectives Property Acquisition at Louisiana Court
Ms. Schnitker updated the Council on the possible purchase of two properties at Louisiana Court.
With Council approval, Perspectives Inc. would submit funding applications to two housing
agencies and use the funds to purchase and renovate the Louisiana Court properties.
Perspectives hopes to provide permanent housing with the addition of these two properties to the
families in their programs.
Councilmember Sanger had several questions regarding the purchase price of the properties.
Council briefly discussed the possible purchase and asked staff to come forward with a
resolution approving the funding applications.
4. Refuse Program Phone Survey Results
Mr. Roth stated that earlier in the year, staff had hired Decision Resources, Ltd. to conduct a
survey on resident satisfaction with the refuse collection program. The results of the survey
showed that overall residents were satisfied and knowledgeable with the program. The main
cause for resident dissatisfaction was littering and treatment of the refuse containers. Staff will
work with Waste Management to monitor and correct the problems. Councilmember Nelson
agreed with the problems listed in the survey results.
Another issue is whether to supply plastic carts instead of cans, however, the survey determined
that residents were not willing to pay more than one dollar per year for the service. Council
discussed the value of bins rather than cans with detachable lids. It was mentioned that carts
might eliminate some of the problems with can treatment and littering.
Councilmember Santa reported that she is receiving more compliments about Waste
Management than complaints. Mayor Jacobs felt that service could be improved especially in
terms of missed service. Councilmember Sanger was concerned that the statistics given were
understated and did not reflect the calls to Councilmembers. Mr. Merkley clarified that all
21
complaints that had reached Waste Management were reflected in the survey and the results were
compiled separately. Mr. Meyer informed Council that Councilmember Latz was concerned
about the timeliness of phone service. Council discussed carts supplied by Waste Management
and agreed that there was no support to begin a pilot program with that idea.
5. Sidewalks and Trails
Council discussed the specific revisions to the plan and where follow up may be needed.
Councilmember Santa was concerned about accessibility to bus routes and stated that changes
will be needed as development occurs.
Council discussed the process used in dealing with case by case situations that will occur as
projects are developed. They also discussed the process for voting on major revisions in the
future and determined they would continue to adopt revisions as the project goes forward. The
public will need to be consulted and Council will need to vote on any revisions that are needed.
Council agreed that ward Councilmembers will need to continue communication with residents
in their neighborhoods.
Councilmember Young raised the point of sidewalk widths. Mr. Rardin informed Council about
the effects of decreasing the width of the sidewalks has on the cost of snow removal. He asked if
the six-year time frame would be considered too long to complete the project. Council directed
staff to explore the feasibility of completing the entire project in a shortened time frame.
It was determined that maintenance of the sidewalks and trails will be key. Councilmember
Santa supported the idea of taking over the maintenance to meet the expectations of the public.
Councilmember Young disagreed and urged Council to delay the start of maintenance on the
sidewalks in question.
After reviewing the map and where new sidewalks would be placed, Council directed staff to
begin maintenance on the city sidewalks as designated on the maps. Based upon the practice of
the surrounding cities, Council agreed plowing of key trails should begin. The Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission will review and make a recommendation about the amenities
to be provided on the trails.
6. Reilly Superfund Site
The item was postponed to a future meeting.
7. Communications – None
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
22
Item # 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 28, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Susan Sanger, Chris
Nelson, and Mayor Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Director of Inspections (Mr.
Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), Inspections Supervisor (Ms.
Boettcher), Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Lawful Gambling Six Month Review
Ms. Reichert stated that upon Council request staff has reviewed the amount of expenditures to
see if the lawful gambling tax percentage is appropriate to cover the cost of administration,
investigation, and enforcement. She stated that if a positive fund balance is found at the end of
the year, the City must either issue refunds or maintain the positive balance if circumstances
warrant it. Ms. Reichert passed along several comments that she had received from the gambling
organizations to request review of the tax.
Council discussed and agreed that the rebate should be given this year and felt no change should
be made in the percentage of taxes received due to the fact that six months is not adequate
enough to establish a tax baseline.
2. 2001 Proposed Budget and 2000 Revised Budget
Ms. McGann indicated that the 2001 budget was now balanced. The budget utilizes a three-
percent tax levy in the General Operating budget, a one- percent tax levy to the Park
Improvement fund, and a service charge increase of two percent in the Water and Sewer
Enterprise fund. The only new expenditures will be limited to organizational development, part-
time support staff in Finance, and one computer support position that depends upon receipt of
grant revenue.
Ms. McGann discussed the difference between contract work and employee work, stating that
contract work can allow more flexibility.
She indicated that some funds from the pension account were used to fund police and fire
training.Ms. McGann also discussed the market value increase and the effect it had on the
property tax revenue.
Councilmember Latz arrived at 7:25 p.m.
23
Councilmember Sanger asked if additional money could be allocated to sidewalk repair. Mr.
Meyer replied that the budget includes snow and ice removal and money for repairs has
increased as well. He also indicated that curb cuts would be a major capital piece of the trail and
sidewalk construction.
Councilmember Brimeyer had several specific questions on revenue and expenditures in the
budget.
Councilmember Sanger asked for concrete rationalizations for dedicating an additional one
percent tax levy to the park improvement fund. Councilmember Latz supported an interim
solution to the park improvement fund problems. Mr. Meyer briefed Council on the last levy
limit update. Councilmember Latz wanted to know when to anticipate a long-term solution to
the park improvement fund.
Mr. Meyer replied that the Capital Improvement Plan will be available soon and will show the
expenses anticipated.
Council felt that a one- percent tax levy may not be enough and suggested using a two- percent
tax levy with the option of lowering it if needed. Upon further discussion, Council agreed to the
one- percent tax levy for the Park Improvement fund.
3. Economic Development Authority 2001 Budget Update
Ms. McGann indicated that the primary expenditure for 2001 is the Park Commons project
which is funded through the Excelsior Blvd. Tax Increment District.
Councilmember Brimeyer had several questions about individual funds and expenses.
Councilmember Latz asked how the School District’s use of market value calculation affects the
city budget. Ms. McGann replied that the revenue numbers are lowered.
Mr. Harmening discussed recent legislative changes, indicating the changes will not adversely
affect the budget.
4. Proposed Licensing Program
Staff has prepared a new licensing program to simplify the City’s current program in hopes of
setting reasonable fees, more focused inspection and enforcement, and simplifying the
administrative process. In the last twenty years, the current licensing program has only had
minor changes and is complicated for staff and the public to use.
Staff indicated the proposed program will have twenty-six types of licenses in four major groups:
business, contractor, temporary use, and animal. Several licenses, such as plumbing and
massage therapist, are proposed for deletion due to the fact that they are regulated and licensed
by the State. Also, individual pieces of equipment will no longer be licensed unless they are
grouped together in a large number which will then need to be inspected. The new temporary
use permit will work to cover costs, especially in situations where several city departments are
involved.
24
The impact to the budget is expected to be very low.
5. Zoning Map Amendment – Comp. Plan Consistency, Cedar Lake Rd
Staff discussed the current zoning of the four residential lots, concentrating on the flood plains,
grade and density levels that affect the parcels. Councilmember Sanger felt the area should be
guided to allow townhomes, but should discourage the development of multi-unit high-density
housing.
Staff indicated the “Boneyard” could be zoned industrial on the western portion of the area as
well as guided as park on the other.
6. Park Commons Update
Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Dreher, TOLD, were both present at the meeting.
Mr. Cunningham compared the new and old plans for the Park Commons project. He then
presented the project scope, the number of units for sale and for rental, the amount of office
square footage, and retail square footage.
Mr. Cunningham indicated that they are working with the feasibility analysis and a step by step
review.
Council and staff discussed the landscape and parking plans, town green, owner/rental mix, and
tenant prospects. Mr. Cunningham stated that TOLD would continue to work on closing the
funding gap and emphasized they are very committed to the project.
Ms. Jeremiah reviewed the upcoming schedule, reporting that the zoning deadline for changes is
September 1. A neighborhood meeting will be held on September 12 and a detailed feasibility
analysis will be available October 1.
7. Deferred Compensation Plan
Councilmember Brimeyer spoke briefly on the topic.
8. Communications
It was mentioned that Representative Jim Rhodes would like to sponsor legislation regarding
housing repairs.
Council discussed using Kathleen Lamb to lobby for them on both tax increment and civil
service issues.
Mayor Jacobs gave an update on taxi licenses.
Mr. Meyer spoke about the costs for the renovation of Lenox Community Center.
25
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
26
Item # 4e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
October 23, 2000
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Santa,
and Robert Young.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Director of Inspections (Mr.
Hoffman), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Community Television Coordinator
(Mr. Dunlap), and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Frauenshuh Medical Office Building – SW Highway 7/Louisiana Ave Update
Randy McKay, Frauenshuh Companies, updated Council on the progress made since the original
proposal in 1999. He indicated that currently they do not have enough office space committed to
feel comfortable moving forward. Mr. McKay stated that Frauenshuh is considering three
different options and would like feedback from Council. Frauenshuh could continue trying to
lease office space for the original three story building plan, pursue a corporate office client who
can utilize the original plan and possibly increase the number of stories, or they can request
approval for a one story medical office building.
Mike Denny, project manager for Frauenshuh Companies, was also present at the meeting.
Mr. McKay indicated that they are currently pursuing lease agreements with several companies
for two multi-story buildings and one one-story building. He showed a picture of a single level
building they would like to start with. Council expressed their concern that the expected level at
the intersection would not be achieved with the one level building plan.
Mr. McKay stated they would like direction from Council on this matter. Councilmember
Nelson stated that he liked the idea of the corporate office. He did express his concern that tax
abatement had already been approved by the County and school. He indicated re-approval
would be needed if the changes were significant enough. Mr. Harmening added that there are
also issues with the billboard and the Preliminary PUD already approved.
Councilmember Latz suggested they extend the PUD to preserve the developers options. He felt
reluctant to move forward with a one-story building due to the under utilization it would bring to
the site. Councilmember Nelson inquired if the developer had considered the experience of the
developers on the north side of the intersection in terms of pollution abatement. Mr. McKay
replied that have not yet but will address and evaluate those issues as they go on.
Mr. McKay stated they would continue with the planning process with a six-month extension to
be approved at a future meeting.
27
2. Ford Rd Partners – Preliminary Request for Tax Increment Financing Assistance;
460 Ford RD – 90 Unit Apartment Project
This item was removed from the agenda. However, Councilmember Young gave a brief
synopsis of his meeting with the developer.
3. Park Commons Update
Bob Cunningham, TOLD, presented concept plan comparisons and the plan they felt would be
most logical.
Ms. Walsh stated that after reviewing the site for the town green, at least fifty-five feet would be
needed for programming.
Ms. Jeremiah discussed parking needs, stating that estimates have been made but they must be
refined. She cautioned against paving more space than necessary for parking.
Dennis Sutliffe, of ESG Architects, Inc. presented an analysis of shade that would be cast from
the buildings.
Councilmember Latz inquired if buildings would be terraced with balconies as they get to higher
floors and Mr. Sutliffe replied they would. Mr. Meyer asked if Masonettes would still be
possible along 38th and 39th Streets and Mr. Cunningham replied they would.
Ms. Jeremiah questioned the building height in plan E. Mr. Cunningham responded that only
one building would be eight stories with one more at seven stories.
Council discussed the Metropolitan Council grant.
The impact on Wolfe Park was also discussed. Councilmember Latz asked about the EAW. Ms.
Jeremiah replied that an addendum to the EAW may be prepared to address the changes
contemplated.
Councilmember Latz questioned whether the live/work units should be eliminated.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about the success of such units. Mr. Meyer stated that the
Masonettes could be configured to provide office or work space for an owner.
Councilmember Young expressed his thanks to Bob Cunningham and Gary Dreher of TOLD for
the good work on this project. He felt they had met their goals to widen the town green and
reduce the “wing” near Westmoreland Lane. He added that he had toured Centennial Lakes and
Linden Hills and seven story buildings made sense in an urban environment. Councilmember
Santa liked to see a wider town green, but would like to see a reduction in the number of
apartments.
Councilmember Nelson agreed with a wider town green, proposed Plan E, and the added height
on the northerly buildings if it allowed for buildings on Excelsior Blvd. to be reduced to three
stories. He felt that the park edge was not moved far enough south. Councilmember Nelson
inquired if other Councilmembers were comfortable with the fact that the buildings and scale are
28
so big with the project. Councilmembers Brimeyer, Latz, and Young stated they were
comfortable with the density of the project.
Councilmember Latz expressed his concern that reducing the heights on Excelsior Blvd. will
overload 38th St with the height.
Mr. Meyer suggested that since site plans D & E are generally in agreement, more energy could
be directed more toward a design based on what is generally agreed upon. Councilmember Latz
stated that he felt comfortable with plan E.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested they move forward with the design so they are able to view
how it will look. Councilmember Latz agreed. Mr. Cunningham replied they would come back
to Council with the design. Ms. Jeremiah inquired if it would be acceptable to advertise a public
hearing notice for the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning. She indicated that she would schedule
a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Meyer felt it important to present the design to the larger
community.
4. Licensing Ordinance and Fee Resolution Update
Mr. Hoffman discussed the courtesy bench fees and stated that staff would like to have one
uniform fee for all courtesy benches. He explained that the fee would cover the cost of all
incidentals associated with the license. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about graduated fees.
Councilmember Young felt the fee system should be kept simple and use only one fee for all
courtesy benches. Councilmember Latz agreed.
Council agreed that staff should move forward with second reading of the ordinance as
presented. Councilmember Santa showed a letter from Minnesota Air about the continuing
education requirement for mechanical contractors. She felt that it made sense to have contractors
show on-going competency. Mr. Hoffman then described city provided classes and indicated
that manufacturers also offer continuing education classes.
5. Dan Patch Study – Station Location Options
Staff gave Council further information on the proposed station location options in hopes of
enabling them to choose a location. After considerable discussion, Council felt that they were
unable to make a decision in the short amount of time given to them. They indicated that St.
Louis Park could offer more than one location for a station. Council asked the representative
from Parsons Brinckerhoff to inform MnDot that they were unable to make a decision on one
location and would like to consider the possibility of having two stations in St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about the time frame involved with the project. Ms. Erickson
informed the Council of the public hearing that is to be held on transit issues.
6. Organizational Development Coordinator Contract
Mr. Meyer gave a brief review, stating that staff recommended appointing Bridget Gothberg as
the organizational development coordinator for the City. He indicated that St. Louis Park
Vision, Mission, and Values had defined organizational development as a necessary
29
commitment. Mr. Meyer stated that Ms. Gothberg’s duties would be to help employees learn
and grow to help them improve their problem solving and customer service skills.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that more training be implemented in the beginning when staff
is hired and looks towards scaling back. He was concerned that the size of government is
increasing. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that it should be looked at in the perspective that they
may be able to scale back in two to three years. He suggested they have checkpoints every six
months or so. He also stated that he would like to see diversity training and inclusion as a
component of the organizational development.
7. Communications
Councilmember Nelson inquired about the EAW process and perimeter. Staff replied they would
determine the level of process needed to evaluate the proposed changes to the plan.
Councilmember Latz discussed railroad blocking and the issues the City of Minnetonka is
dealing with. He inquired if the amount of night time blocking will increase and Mr. Meyer
responded that there will be no night time blocking in South Oak Hill neighborhood.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
30
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7a. First Reading of Amendment to Zoning Map to Change the Zoning from C-2
General Commercial, R-C High Density Residential, and R-3 Two-Family
Residential to M-X Mixed-Use, R-C High-Density Residential and R-3 Two
Family Residential for Comprehensive Plan Consistency for Park Commons
East.
Case No.00-60-Z
East of Quentin Avenue, west of Monterey Drive, and north of Excelsior Boulevard
to the southern portion of Wolfe Park
Recommended
Action:
Approve First Reading of Zoning Map Amendment to be
adopted contingent upon associated Comprehensive Plan
amendments being approved by the Metropolitan Council and set
Second Reading for January 16, 2001
Background:
In September, 1999 the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 became effective. The Comprehensive
Plan included mixed-use, high-density residential, and park land use designations to
accommodate the redevelopment of the Park Commons East area. A redevelopment concept
plan was also adopted into the Redevelopment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Comprehensive Plan was not immediately
commenced.
On November 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
certain amendments to the land use designations and Redevelopment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate revisions to the redevelopment concept plans for Park
Commons East. Those amendments were approved by the City Council on December 4, 2000.
The amendments also need to be approved by the Metropolitan Council before they become
effective.
The City of St. Louis Park Zoning Code allows Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning
map amendments to be considered concurrently, as long as the rezoning is contingent upon
approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. During the
November 15th Comprehensive Plan hearing, a representative of the Metropolitan Council was
present and indicated that the amendments appeared to be consistent with Metropolitan Council
policies. Formal Metropolitan Council approval is expected in December.
31
On December 6, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed zoning map amendments to bring the zoning for the area
into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan amendments approved by the City Council on
December 4.
Issues:
How can the property be rezoned prior to platting the new streets and lots?
How are the zoning districts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations
and redevelopment concept plans?
Can development occur that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Analysis of Issues:
How can the property be rezoned prior to platting the new streets and lots?
Zoning in St. Louis Park is done by map rather than by lot or legal description. Therefore, it is
possible to rezone property prior to it being platted into new streets and lots. It is also possible
for a lot to have more than one designation. The attached maps show the existing and proposed
zoning for the area. The maps show existing and proposed right-of-way without any zoning
designations as a means of better orienting the viewer. However, the official zoning map will
show the zoning boundaries extending to the middle of the future right-of-ways.
How are the zoning districts consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and redevelopment concept plans?
The proposed Comprehensive Plan designations for the area include Commercial Mixed-Use,
High-Density Residential, and Park (see attached map).
Commercial Mixed-Use: The Commercial Mixed-Use Comprehensive Plan designation states
that a mixing of uses including commercial is required for every development parcel. Taller
buildings may be appropriate in some areas, and maximum residential densities of 75 units per
acre are permitted. The only zoning designation that mandates a mixing of uses including
commercial and allows residential densities of up to 75 units per acre is the M-X Mixed Use
District. Therefore, all of the areas to be designated Commercial Mixed-Use are proposed to be
zoned M-X. The redevelopment concept plans proposed to be adopted into the Comprehensive
Plan show these areas as including vertical mixed-use buildings with at least 50% ground floor
retail/service and upper story office and/or residential. Heights range from 2 to a maximum of 8
stories (2-7 stories is proposed), and the average net residential density is approximately 58 units
per acre. Therefore, the proposed M-X zoning is also consistent with the redevelopment concept
plan.
High-Density Residential: The High-Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation states
that it is intended for higher density, compact urban residential development including high rise
apartments. It allows for maximum densities of up to 75 units per acre by PUD if within 1000
feet of a park. Three- to four-story buildings are appropriate in some areas with six to eight story
32
and even taller high-rises acceptable in others. A small proportion of retail/service is also
appropriate. The only residential zoning district that allows taller buildings and densities as high
as 75 units per acre by PUD is the R-C High-Density Residential District. Therefore, all areas to
be designated High Density Residential are proposed to be zoned R-C. The redevelopment
concept plans show these areas as including apartments and stacked townhome buildings ranging
from 4 stories up to 8 stories in height (4-7 stories is proposed). Therefore, the proposed R-C
zoning is also consistent with the redevelopment concept plan.
Parks and Open Space: The Parks and Open Space Comprehensive Plan designation states that
it is applied to all public park land and public open space. It also includes recreational buildings
and is intended for areas that are reserved for active and passive recreational uses, natural
amenities, protected areas and the City’s major stormwater retention and drainage areas. The
redevelopment concept plan shows the future town green as having a Parks and Open Space
designation. There is no separate zoning district for “parks”. However, parks and open spaces
are permitted in any zoning district, and Wolfe Park is zoned R-3 Two-Family Residential. For
consistency with Wolfe Park and to help make it clear that the town green is an extension of
Wolfe Park and not part of the surrounding redevelopment parcels, staff is recommending the R-
3 zoning as most consistent with this Parks designation.
Can development occur that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
The City’s Economic Development Authority currently owns almost all of the land in the Park
Commons East area, and acquisition of the remaining small parcels is imminent. Therefore, the
City has a great deal of control regarding the future redevelopment and ensuring it is consistent
with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. However, even if the City were to sell the land prior
to approving final redevelopment plans and executing redevelopment contracts, there are several
sureties built into the Zoning Code.
The M-X District allows new uses to be considered only if they are in conformance with an
adopted redevelopment plan or approved by PUD. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
is also a requirement of PUD approval, so consistency with the Comprehensive Plan would have
to be found either way. The R-3 and R-C zoning districts include some permitted uses that are
not necessarily consistent with the redevelopment concept plan. However, the Zoning Code
states that if there is a conflict between the zoning and Comprehensive Plan, building permits
cannot be issued until the conflict is resolved. In other words, a Comprehensive Plan
amendment would have to be applied for, a public hearing held, and a determination made that
the Comprehensive Plan should be amended before a different use could be considered.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of first reading of the zoning map
amendments contingent upon the associated Comprehensive Plan amendments being approved
by Metropolitan Council.
Attachments:
33
Proposed Ordinance and the current and proposed Zoning Maps
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map and Redevelopment Concept
Plan.
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
34
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
Park Commons East
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore
amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying
the following illustrated lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land
use district classification as indicated for the property as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
See Attached Maps
from “C-2” General Commercial, “R-C” High Density Residential and “R-3” Two-Family
Residential to “M-X” Mixed-Use, “R-C” High Density Residential and “R-3” Two-Family
Residential
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-60-Z/N/res/ord
35
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of December 18, 2000
5a. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling
Premises Permit for St. Louis Park Boy’s Traveling Basketball Association at
Texa-Tonka Lanes, located at 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the resolution
authorizing renewal.
Background:
The St. Louis Park Traveling Basketball Association has submitted an application for a
Gambling Premises Permit at Texa Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Blvd. The organization
holds a Class B license and conducts lawful gambling at this site only. The Association donates
approximately $40,000 annually to the youth basketball program for boys in grades five through
eight. The association also directs ten percent of their gross profit to a charity of the Texa-Tonka
Lane’s choice.
All requirements for issuance of the license have been met. Notification was made to property
owners within 350 feet of the establishment and no calls have been received in response to that
mailing. The Police Department has conducted a thorough background investigation of the
organization and its officers.
The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State
Gambling Control Board. If approved, a copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be
submitted to the State.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
36
RESOLUTION NO. 00-157
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING
St. Louis Park Traveling Basketball Association
At Texa Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance
Section 13-1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board;
and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site
unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant
listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is
hereby approved
St. Louis Park Traveling Basketball Association
At Texa Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park Minnesota 55426
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
City Clerk
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of December 18, 2000
5b. Year 2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Public hearing to inform the public and allow for citizen input regarding the Police
Department budget and the relation of that budget to Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant fund disbursement
As a recipient of a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program award, the St.
Louis Park Police Department is requesting disbursement of $19,960.00 in grant
funds from the U.S. Department of Justice to be used for career development
training for department personnel
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve grant fund
award.
Background:
The Bureau of Justice Assistance has approved the City of St. Louis Park’s application for
funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG) in the amount of
$19,960.00. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to reduce crime and improve public safety.
Recipients must agree to comply with special condictions which include the formation of a
community advisory board to review and endorse the proposed use of funds. This advisory
board was organized and met on December 6, 2000 at which time they gave unanimous
endorsement to the use of these funds for personnel career development training. In accordance
with the award’s special conditions, recipients must also deposit the funds in an interest bearing
trust fund for allowable expenses.
Recipients must also agree to hold a public hearing prior to the obligation of any funds to allow
for citizen input regarding the proposed use of these grant funds in relation to the organization’s
budget.
Attachments: Grant application (web-based application copy)
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
38
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7b. Resolution Approving Oak Park Area Master Plan.
This report considers the approval of the Master Plan recommended by the Task
Force for the Oak Park Village, Oak Hill Park, and Walker Park areas.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Oak Hill Area
Parks Master Plan.
Background
The City Council established a task force made up of community representatives from youth
athletic associations, City staff, neighborhood associations, City Council, area businesses, City
Commissions, and the school district. The Task Force met a total of six times. During these
meetings, members expressed their comments and suggestions for the types of park amenities
and design of the park.
The City Council reviewed the final plan recommended by the Task force at their November 27,
2000 Study Session and requested that the plan move ahead in the approval process.
Open Houses
The first Open House to review the plan was held on September 21 and was very well attended.
Residents attending the first Open House were shown three concept plans. The comments and
suggestions from that Open House were taken into consideration as the Task Force made
revisions and incorporated the best parts of each plan into one desired concept. The final concept
plan was then presented to the public at a second Open House that was held on November 21.
Proposed Elements and Amenities
The following is a list of the activities that are being recommended for the three park sites.
Oak Park Village
• Three multi-use athletic fields to be used for soccer, football, lacrosse or other activities
requiring large open spaces (the field in the southeast corner would have lights) (one multi-
use field would not be available if baseball is using their field)
• One baseball practice field (this field is not proposed to have an outfield fence)
• When the baseball field is not being used, the open space could be used for soccer, football,
lacrosse or other activities for a total of four multi-use areas
• Trails for walking, jogging, in-line skating, and cross country skiing
• Additional parking (235-250 spots total)
• Park shelter building and playground equipment
• Public art
39
Walker Park
• One baseball/softball field
• One multi-use athletic field (soccer, football, lacrosse)
Oak Hill Park
• Bobsled run (Stendel slide)
• Ice skating loop (additional lights on the east side of the skating area)
• New warming house
• New playground equipment
• Wading pool
• Football practice field
• Picnic shelters
• Basketball court (upgraded)
• Horseshoe courts
• Two t-ball fields (improved)
• Frisbee golf
• Northern Lights
Naming of the Oak Park Village Park Area
The Task Force is recommending to the City Council that the naming of the park be the
responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The Commission could
recommend a potential name to the City Council for their consideration. The Task Force
suggested the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission consider a contest where community
members are given the opportunity to submit potential names.
Cost of Project
SRF Consulting Inc. is estimating the cost of construction at Oak Park Village to be
approximately one million dollars, excluding the cost of the park building. Since the building has
not yet been designed, the cost would vary depending on what amenities are included . At this
time, the Task Force has given the following recommendations for the building: seasonal use;
capacity for 75 people; minimal kitchen facilities with plumbing in place for expansion if
concessions are to be sold; restrooms; storage; and electricity.
A new warming house, and the potential for frisbee golf at Oak Hill Park will also be costs that
need further review.
Trail lighting is another element that may increase the cost of the project. The Task Force has
suggested that trail lighting be added to the central loop of trails. Because of the spill over from
streetlights, light fixtures may be kept to a minimum. A trail lighting plan needs to be part of the
next step design phase.
Future Parking Expansion
The parking shown on the plan is the minimum that has been recommended by a traffic engineer.
There are two areas where parking could be expanded in the future if we find it necessary. One
of these is the area south of the pond and the other is on the hill where the contaminated soil was
piled and capped.
40
Priorities
The Task Force discussed the option of developing the Oak Park Village site and redeveloping
the Oak Hill and Walker Park areas in phases. It is their recommendation that staff work with the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to suggest priorities and phasing options to the City
Council. Staff believes the work could be done in phases and will look for priorities and
opportunities to develop the areas in phases. One such opportunity may be receiving large
quantities of clean fill from a project (Park Commons) for Oak Park Village.
Next Steps
The Council is asked to approve the Master Plan and direct staff to look into funding options and
phases of development. Staff will work with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
about naming and the phasing of the project. The City Council will be asked at a later date to
approve advancing the project by working with a consultant to design plans and specification and
further define phasing and costs.
Attachments: Resolution
Letters from residents
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
41
RESOLUTION NO. 00-158
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER
PLAN FOR THE OAK HILL AREA PARKS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has decided that the Oak Park
Village site will be developed as park property; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park established a task force of community
representatives to provide council with comments and suggestions for park design and amenities
to be included in that design; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park passed resolution number 00-052 authorizing a
contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to work with city staff and the task force on park
development planning and design work; and
WHEREAS, after receiving comments from the public at open houses held September
21, 2000 and November 21, 2000, the City Council reviewed the final plan recommended by the
task force and requested that staff bring forward the plan for formal Council approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council hereby approves the Master Plan for the Oak Hill Area
Parks and directs staff and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to work with the
City’s consultant to design plans and specifications and further define phasing and costs for
future approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
42
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7c. Amendment To Railroad Blocking Agreement
This action amends the agreement entered into between the Cities of Hopkins,
Minnetonka and St. Louis Park, Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company and
Canadian Pacific Railway in December 1999 to alleviate rail blocking activities in
the three cities. The amendment would allow the parties to change the specific
blocking procedures spelled out in the agreement through a memorandum of
understanding.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the
contract amendment and to authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute memoranda of agreement establishing
blocking procedures.
Background: In December 199 the Cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka, TC&W
and CP Rail entered into an agreement to install a new crossover in a non-residential segment of
track in Hopkins at which TC&W agreed to perform its nighttime blocking operations. After
TC&W’s new blocking operations were implemented residents of the City of Minnetonka
previously unaffected complained of additional noise resulting from the blocking operational
changes.
A noise study was performed n July 2000 to substantiate the residents’ claims. The results
showed that the new switch was effective in keeping the noise from the operation from
impacting the original neighborhoods but that portions of the operation have introduced
significant impacts to adjacent homes in the Beachside neighborhood of Minnetonka.
The City Managers from the three cities have met several times to evaluate options. The option
that holds the most promise is to keep the new switch in place and alter operations to spread the
adverse impact between all neighborhoods on a fair basis. The procedures previously discussed
with City Council at the November 13th Study Session involved moving the nighttime blocking
into St. Louis Park and Minnetonka for 2 weeks and 3 weeks at a time respectively. These
procedures continue to be discussed and alternatives sought.
The Cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins have already authorized the amendment and the rail
companies have been requested to sign off.
A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 14th with the residents of the
South Oak Hill neighborhood. Depending on the results of that meeting, Councilmember Santa
or the City Manager may recommend deferral of the approval of this amendment.
43
Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Council support the amendment to the
agreement and that the City continue to work toward a blocking procedure that has the least
adverse impact on all residential neighborhoods involved.
Attachments:
Original Blocking Agreement from November 1999
Proposed Contract Amendment
Report from RLK on the blocking problem
Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
44
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7d. Adopt 2001 Budget, 2000 Revised Budget and 2001 Property Tax Levy
This is the final step in the 2001 budget process.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution adopting the 2001 budget and
Revised 2000 budget and to approve resolution approving the
2001 Property tax levy.
Background: The 2001 budget and 2000 Revised budget document was presented to the City
Council in August of this year. In September, the City Council approved the preliminary tax
levy and budget for 2001. At that same meeting, a public hearing for the 2001 budget and
property tax levy was set for December 5, 2000. This hearing was held as part of the regular
City Council meeting. State law requires adoption of the budget and tax levy at a meeting
subsequent to the public hearing on the budget.
2001 Budget and 2000 Revised Budget: There have been several revisions to the 2000 revised
budget since the August meeting and one revision to the 2001 proposed budget. Revisions to the
2000 revised budget and 2001 proposed budget are outlined below.
Department Purpose Amount Description
Revenue
Building Permits
Additional
Revenue 100,384$ Building permit revenue higher than estimated
Expenditures
Human Resources Recruitment 45,000$ Recruitment higher than normal in 2000
City Clerk/Elections Elections 7,884
The number of election judges and training
hours needed exceeded estimates
Finance
Investment
Software 7,500
Allocation requested for purchase of investment
software
Technology &
Support Hardware Re 40,000
Additional fees to be paid for hardware repair
and consulting fees
Total Expenditure Increase 100,384$
2000 Revised Budget
45
Department Purpose Amount Description
Revenue
Engineering
Servjces Engineering 83,849$
City Engineer position to be implemented 2-1-01.
Position to be paid for by charges to projects
Expenditures
City Engineer
Project
Engineering 83,849$ City Engineer position
2001 Budget
Property Tax Levy: The final property tax levy approved by the City Council may not exceed
the preliminary levy. The final levy amount detailed in the attached resolution is the same as the
preliminary levy approved by the City Council in September. As required by law, the amount
specified in the resolution is net of the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA).
The General Operating budget levy is increasing by 3%, the Park Improvement fund is receiving
a new allocation of 1%, (this is an additional levy increase) and the General Obligation Bonds
will receive an allocation of $319,500. The General Obligation Bond is receiving $210,000
more than in 2000 based on the debt service payback schedule.
Attachments: Resolution approving the 2000 tax levy, collectible in 2001
Resolution adopting the 2001 budget and revisions to the 2000
budget
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
46
RESOLUTION NO. 00-160
Resolution Approving the 2000 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2001
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2000, collectible in 2001 upon the
taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
General Fund $ 7,926,225
Park and Recreation Fund 1,957,944
Park Improvement Fund 150,561
GO Debt Service 319,500
Total $10,354,230
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and to
the Local Government Aids/Analysis Division, Department of Revenue, State of Minnesota, as
required by law.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
47
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2001 BUDGET AND REVISING THE 2000 BUDGET
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve an
annual budget for each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document for 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the attached budget revisions for 2000 and
WHEREAS, City Council has held the required public hearing on the budget and proposed
tax levy for 2001;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the budget for 2001 and 2000 Revised is hereby approved; and the totals of the 2001
budget and major divisions thereof are as follows:
Revenues: Appropriations:
General Property Taxes 10,357,470$ Personal Services 18,969,745$
Business License Permits 305,450 Supplies, services and other charges 17,954,953
Non-Business License Permits 1,243,450 Capital Outlay 2,573,793
Intergovernmental 5,775,409 Transfers Out 1,884,913
Charges for Services 3,382,325
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 419,000 Total Appropriations 41,383,404
Enterprise 9,814,176
Special Assessments 78,621
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,325,407
Refunds and Reimbursements 710,926 Fund Balance / Reserves-Dec 31 34,865,204
Transfers In 1,067,501
Total Revenues 34,479,735
Net Revenue 34,479,735
Fund Balance / Reserves-Jan 1 41,768,873
Total Available 76,248,608$ Total Requirements 76,248,608$
AVAILABLE RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS
48
and as supported by the detailed proposed budget document; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Manager be directed to cause the appropriate
accounting entries to be made in the books of the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
49
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7e
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7e. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 11-1003 and 11-1004 of the
St. Louis Park Municipal Code related to False Alarms
This revision will remove fees from the false alarm ordinance and allow fees to be
set by resolution.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
January 15,2000.
Background: At the November 27, 2000 City Council Study Session, Council received a report
on False Alarms. This report indicated that a cost analysis was done in preparation for the 2001
budget. The analysis showed that the fee of $75.00 per false alarm is not sufficient to cover the
costs of responding to the false alarm call. The analysis further showed that $90.00 per false
alarm would be the appropriate amount to charge in order to recover costs. This type of analysis
was last done in 1995 and the false alarm fee of $75.00 has not changed since that time.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending increasing the false alarm fee to $90.00 per call.
This increase in fees would not change the status of one “free” false alarm call per year. Staff
also recommends removing all reference to fees from the ordinance and passing by resolution the
fee to be charged. A resolution setting the false alarm fee will be introduced with 2nd reading of
the ordinance.
Attachments: False Alarm Ordinance
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
50
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ALARMS: AMENDING
SECTION 11-1003 AND SECTION 11-1004
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
PART 10 – Alarms
Section 11-1001. Purpose and Scope.
(1) The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public safety services of the City
from misuse and to provide for the maximum possible service to alarm users.
(2) This ordinance provides regulation for the use of fire, burglary and safety alarms.
Section 11-1002. Definitions
(1) “Public safety personnel” means duly authorized City employees or employee.
(2) “Alarm user” means the person, firm, partnership, association, corporation,
company or organization of any kind in control of any building, structure, or
facility wherein an alarm system is maintained.
(3) “Public safety answering point” is the City facility used to receive emergency
requests for service and general information from the public, and which
dispatches public safety units as appropriate.
(4) “Alarm system” means and includes any alarm installation designed to be used for
the prevention or detection of burglary, robbery, fire or hazardous conditions on
the premises which contain an alarm installation. Medical (panic) alarms are
included in this definition. Automobile alarm devices shall not be considered an
alarm system under the terms of this ordinance.
(5) “False alarm” means an alarm signal eliciting a response by public safety
personnel when a situation requiring a response does not exist, and which is
caused by the activation of the alarm system through mechanical failure, alarm
malfunction, improper installation or the inadvertence of the owner or lessee of an
alarm system or of their employee or agents.
False alarms do not include alarms caused by climatic conditions such as
tornadoes, thunderstorms, utility line mishaps, violent conditions of nature or any
other conditions which are clearly beyond the control of the alarm manufacturer,
installer or owner.
51
Section 11-1003. User Fees.
(1) An alarm system user which reports more than one false alarm(s) to the City in a
single calendar year will cause the alarm user to be charged a user fee.
(2) A user fee will not be charged if the alarm system user notifies the public safety
answering point that the alarm is unfounded and responding units are cancelled
prior to their arrival.
(3) Any alarm user who is required by the City to pay a user fee as a result of a false
alarm may make a written appeal of the false alarm charge to the City Manager,
or designee, within 10 days of notice by the City of the false alarm charge. The
City Manager will have authority to make a final determination as to whether the
appellant is to be charged with a false alarm.
Section 11-1004. Payment of fees.
(1) Payment of user fees provided for under Section 11-1003 must be paid to the City
Treasurer within 30 days from the date of notice by the City to the alarm user.
(2) All delinquent charges shall be certified by the Clerk to the City Assessor who
shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for assessment of the
delinquent amounts against the respective properties served, which assessment
roll shall be delivered to the City Council for adoption on or before November 29
of each year.
Section 11-1005. Administrative rules.
(1) The City Manager, or designee, shall promulgate such rules as may be necessary
for the implementation of this ordinance and the administration thereof.
Section 11-1006. Confidentiality.
(1) All information submitted in compliance with this ordinance shall be held in
confidence and shall be deemed a confidential record exempt from discovery to
the extent permitted by law.
(2) Subject to requirements of confidentiality, the Chief of Police or the Fire Chief, or
designee(s), may develop and maintain statistics of the purpose of ongoing alarm
systems evaluation.
Section 11-1007. Communications Center.
(1) No automatic dialing devices shall be connected to the public safety answering
point through any telephone line. Use of automatic dialing devices will be
considered a violation of this ordinance.
52
(2) The City Manager, or designee, shall have the authority to promulgate rules and
regulations for the efficient operation of the public safety answering point.
Section 11-1008. Enforcement and Penalties.
(1) Failure or omission to comply with any section of this ordinance shall be deemed
a misdemeanor with penalties as defined in Section 2-203 of this Code and may
be so prosecuted.
Section 2: Effective Date: This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after is publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
53
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7f
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7f. Request by Edina Development Company for a Major amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit for site plan, tree replacement and landscaping
changes and a variance for reduced bufferyard for Excelsior Townhomes
Case Nos. 00-45-CUP and 00-46-VAR
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a variance for
reduced bufferyard along east lot line.
• Motion to adopt a resolution amending previous Resolution
No. 98-97 and granting a major amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions in the
resolution.
Zoning: R-4, Multiple Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RM, Medium Density Residential
Background:
In 1998 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and plat for Excelsior Townhomes
(now called Creekside Townhomes), a 38-unit townhouse development. The townhomes have
been built and many of the exterior improvements completed. The site improvements were
installed differently from the approved plans in several ways, and with one exception (change to
building foundation plantings) approval from the Planning Division was not sought before
implementing the changes. The developer is also requesting approval to make some additional
changes to the approved plans at this time. The following changes are proposed to the approved
plans:
• The main private road, Excelsior Way, located along the east property line was reduced in
width from 30 feet wide to 28 feet wide.
• Landscaped bumpouts (landscaped parallel parking islands), which were to be installed along
the east property line to define the guest parking areas and provide areas for landscaping,
were not installed. In addition, trees existing on the site which were to have remained within
the bumpout areas were removed. The applicant is now proposing to install the landscaped
bumpouts per the originally approved plans, albeit slightly narrower and with different
landscaping, and to provide replacement trees for the trees that were removed.
• The tree inventory has been modified to take account of existing trees on site which were not
counted in the original inventory, as well as take account for trees which were to have been
preserved which were removed during the development process. The tree replacement plan
is proposed to be changed as well.
54
• Proposed changes to the approved landscaping plan, including a reduced landscape
bufferyard along the east property line, and a proposal to plant some trees on City-owned
park land.
The proposed changes require a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. In addition, a
variance is required for the proposed reduction in landscape bufferyard along the east lot line.
On October 4, 2000 the Planning Commission held public hearings and considered these
requests. The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the CUP Amendment
and variance including conditions recommended by staff. The opposing members did not want
to grant approval for plan changes after the changes were already made on site by the developer.
Please see attached minutes (excerpts) of the October 4 meeting.
Issues:
• Have the conditions been met for City Council consideration?
• Are the modified tree inventory and tree replacement plans acceptable?
• Are the proposed changes to the landscape plan acceptable?
• Are the proposed site changes acceptable (i.e., reduced road width and reduced width of
landscaped bumpouts)?
• Does the variance request for reduced landscape bufferyard meet the necessary criteria
for granting a variance?
• Are there any other issues?
Issues Analysis:
Have the conditions been met for City Council consideration?
Prior to City Council consideration, the applicant was required to meet the following conditions:
a. Modify tree inventory per staff’s comments to meet Ordinance requirements.
The tree inventory has been modified and appears accurate. See below for further
discussion.
b. Work with City staff to modify the tree replacement plan to include as many
replacement trees as is reasonable on site and the remainder of the requirements
to be satisfied by donating cash in lieu of trees to the City at a rate to be approved
by the Community Development Director and Park and Recreation Director.
Staff believes the revised tree replacement plan is acceptable, and a condition is
recommended regarding providing the remaining tree replacement through cash in lieu of
on-site trees. See below for further discussion.
c. Modify the landscape plan to show eight foot wide, landscaped curbed bumpouts
along the east lot line in originally approved locations, and a planting plan for at
55
least 130 plant units within the bumpout areas. Plantings shall be of high point
value and quality and include overstory trees and at least 20% evergreen
plantings.
During the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to this condition, although
they had initially opposed installing the bumpouts. They apparently misunderstood the staff
recommendation for the bumpout design and had believed it to be unworkable. The revised
plans meet the above requirements (see below for further discussion).
Are the modified tree inventory and tree replacement plans acceptable?
Tree Inventory: The tree inventory, which documents the size, species and location of all existing
significant trees and notes trees to be removed, was modified to note additional trees that were
overlooked in the original tree inventory. It was also modified to show that all of the trees along
the east lot line were removed, even though some were to have been preserved in the original
plan. Per the revised plans, the required tree replacement has been reduced from 197.5 inches to
175 caliper inches.
Tree Replacement Plan: The tree replacement plan is proposed to be modified to show fewer
trees planted on site due to space constraints. The applicant has worked with staff to try to locate
as many trees as possible on site. Staff is recommending a condition that the remaining
replacement inches (approximately 120 inches) which cannot be planted on site, be donated to
the City as cash in lieu of trees, as has been done on other development projects.
Are the proposed changes to the landscape plan acceptable?
The proposed changes to the landscape plan (not including any tree replacement, which was
discussed above) include: 1) Changes to the approved landscape bufferyard along Excelsior
Boulevard; 2) Changes in the planting location of trees fulfilling the requirement for one canopy
tree per lot, including a proposal to plant some trees on City park land directly north of the
development site; 3) Changes to the approved foundation plantings around the townhomes; and
4) reduced landscape bufferyard along the east lot line.
Changes to landscape bufferyard along Excelsior Boulevard: The proposed landscaping
continues to meet bufferyard requirements for this area and staff believes the changes are
acceptable. More trees have been added in this area for greater screening from Excelsior
Boulevard and to increase on-site tree replacement.
Changes to the planting location of the required one canopy tree per lot: The developer is
proposing to plant some of the canopy trees throughout the site rather than next to each unit due
to lack of planting space near the units. They are requesting permission to plant some of the
trees directly north of the townhouse site on City park land. The City Forester is recommending
that permission be granted, provided the developer maintains the trees. Staff is recommending a
condition to this effect.
56
Changes to foundation plantings around townhomes: The proposed changes to the foundation
plantings were requested in advance of being installed, were approved by staff administratively,
and the plantings have been installed.
Reduced bufferyard along east lot line: The reduced east bufferyard requires a variance. Staff is
recommending approval of the variance, provided the landscaped bumpouts are installed as
shown on the proposed site/landscape plan. Please see Variance section below.
Are the proposed site changes acceptable (i.e., reduced road width and reduced width of
landscaped bumpouts)?
Reduced road width: The developer has stated that due to unexpected conditions on the site and
on the adjacent site, a typical retaining wall design would not have worked for the retaining wall
along the east lot line. Therefore, the developer states that they designed a retaining wall that
was extra deep, which required making the road two feet narrower than the 30 foot approved
width. The road is intended to be a two-way road with parking along the east side defined by
curbed, landscaped bumpouts. The bumpouts were not installed. The developer submitted
details of the retaining wall design to the Inspections Department for approval but did not
include any proposed site design of landscaping changes. The developer apparently
misunderstood that approval of the retaining wall construction details by the Inspections
Department did not constitute approval to reduce the road width to accommodate the new wall
design or to eliminate the landscaped bumpouts from the plan.
City staff, including the Fire Department, believe that, although the 30 foot width was preferred,
the 28 foot road width is an acceptable minimum width for this road type for regular and
emergency vehicles. However, there is a concern that the road could effectively become
narrower through inadequate snow removal or poorly defined guest parking areas. Therefore, in
recommending approval of the as-built 28 foot width, staff is also recommending conditions that
the road be maintained free of snow and snow storage at all times and that the City will enforce
this requirement through issuance of citations, fines, and other means. In addition, staff is
recommending that the landscaped bumpouts be installed as close as possible to the aproved
plans, albeit somewhat narrower due to the narrower road width; and, that the guest parking
areas be striped and signed for clarity. The applicant has agreed to these conditions.
Does the variance request for reduced landscape bufferyard meet the necessary criteria for
granting a variance?
A landscape bufferyard “B” is required along the east lot line to provide screening between the
townhomes and the adjacent apartment complex. The applicant is proposing to leave this area as
it is currently developed, with a retaining wall that varies in height from four to seven feet, a row
of shrubs along the top of the retaining wall, and latticework along the top of the wall with vines
planted which will eventually cover the latticework and screen the adjacent garages. The
applicant has also agreed to install landscaped, curbed bumpouts similar to the originally
approved plans. Altogether, about 2/3 of the required buffer plantings are proposed.
57
Variance Criteria:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of
such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing
or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in
which said lot is located.
[Note: The applicant had originally proposed a variance which did not include installing the
landscaped bumpouts, so the applicant’s statements sometimes reflect this. They have now
agreed to install the bumpouts and are requesting a lesser variance, and the lesser variance is
addressed by staff below.] The applicant states that in order to protect the garage footings on the
adjoining property, they worked with the City’s building inspectors to correct the problems with
the Council-approved plan, which did not take into consideration “frost protection” (i.e. when the
contractor excavated for the retaining wall, footings from the garages on the adjacent property
were exposed because they were so near the property line, and the retaining wall design needed
to take into account protection of these footings).
According to the applicant, the design of the retaining wall means that they cannot install the
required landscaping along the east lot line. Staff agrees with the applicant’s landscape architect
that additional landscaping could not be planted along the top of the wall or anywhere else along
this lot line as the development currently exists. The only reasonable option to gain additional
planting space would be to install the curbed bumpouts. According to staff’s calculations, about
130 additional plant units maximum can be accommodated within the bumpout areas, and the
applicant is proposing 136 plant units. Overall, the plan is about 100 units short of the
bufferyard code requirement. Staff agrees that a hardship exists in meeting the full bufferyard
requirements, as there is no other space where more landscaping could be provided. The narrow
lot width and existence of wetlands limit the available space, especially the available width on
the lot to provide adequate road width, parking, and landscaping in this area. Therefore, staff
believes this criterion is met.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so do not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
As explained above, the applicant states that the adjoining property needs to be protected
because of the peculiar condition of the adjoining garage footing (therefore, the retaining wall
was designed in a particular way which requires the variance).
Staff has not explored whether there were other options for the retaining wall design which
would have addressed the site conditions and not resulted in a narrowing of the townhouse road.
However, staff agrees that there are unique site conditions that limit the ability to provide the full
landscape bufferyard in this area, given the narrowness of the lot and the shortage of space along
the east lot line. Therefore, staff believes this criteria has been met with regard to providing the
full landscaping requirements, provided that the bumpouts are installed and fully landscaped as
described above.
58
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that the variance is needed for the preservation of the adjoining property, i.e.
the garages on the Meadowbrook property.
As noted above, staff does not believe that the proposed variance is related to preservation of
garages on the Meadowbrook property because the need for a variance is not fully related to the
retaining wall design. However, staff agrees that a variance for some reduction in bufferyard is
reasonable and necessary to preserve a substantial property right. In order to meet the bufferyard
requirements fully, the applicant would have to landscape all along the retaining wall and
eliminate all of the on-street guest parking. While the development currently exceeds ordinance
requirements for overall parking and for guest parking, the on-street parking along the east lot
line is the only area available to any guest, as the remainder of the parking is located in private
garages or on private driveways. Staff believes it would not be reasonable to force the developer
to eliminate all of the guest parking along the east lot line to install the required landscaping.
However, staff believes it is reasonable to require the developer to adhere to the original
landscaping and site plan as closely as possible, which allowed for 12 guest parking stalls
defined by bumpouts, which would increase the amount of landscaping in this area. Therefore,
staff believes this criterion is satisfied, provided the landscaped bumpouts are installed.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance would in no way impair light to the adjacent
property and will improve fire accessibility. [The applicant also states that not installing
bumpouts would lessen danger to the public by allowing clearer vision for outbound traffic or
emergency vehicles.]
Staff agrees that the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air, lead to public
street congestion, or endanger public safety. The private road should be safer once the
landscaped bumpouts are installed, because they will help define the guest parking areas and
green up the area. Staff believes that this criterion is met.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development
of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the
area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will not diminish or impair the
neighborhood in any way, and that the variance is simply necessary to protect the adjoining
property.
59
Staff believes that some reduction in landscaping along the east lot line will not negatively affect
other properties. The retaining wall, garages and fencing provide visual barrier and the existing
and proposed landscaping provide an aesthetic buffer. Therefore, as currently proposed staff
believes this criterion is met.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that the retaining wall and the vines planted above the retaining wall will
provide the necessary screening between the two properties, and therefore the intent of the
Ordinance is met. [Note: relates to applicant’s original proposal which did not include
bumpouts.]
The intent of the Ordinance is not simply to provide a visual barrier between two properties, but
to require that a certain proportion of the buffer be met through plantings to maintain aesthetics
and “green up” projects. Given the proposed plan to install the landscaped bumpouts and to
include significant vegetation, i.e. overstory trees and evergreen plantings, staff believes the
intent of the Code is preserved and that this criterion is met.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that the variance is necessary to alleviate a hardship as described above.
Due to the narrow width of the lot and the lack of options for installing additional landscaping,
staff agrees that the landscaping proposed is the maximum feasible given the physical conditions
of the lot, and that the variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. Therefore, staff
believes this criterion is met.
Are there any other issues?
The Development Agreement requires all improvements to be completed by October 31, 2000,
or the City will draw on the applicant’s letter of credit and make the improvements. Staff is
recommending that the Agreement be revised to extend this date to May 1, 2001.
60
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission believe the seven criteria have been met for the requested
variance, and are therefore recommending approval of the variance. Staff and the Planning
Commission are also recommending approval of the Major CUP Amendment, subject to the
conditions in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolutions
• October 4, 2000 Planning Commission minutes (excerpts)
• Originally approved landscape/site plan
• Revised tree inventory
• Revised landscape/tree replacement/site plan
• Detail of proposed east bumpouts
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
61
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends Resolutions 98-97
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-97 ADOPTED ON JULY 20, 1998
AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14:5-4.5.D.1.
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF 38 TOWNHOMES FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4,
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 7100-7102 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Edina Development Corporation has made application to the City Council
for a conditional use permit under Section 14:5-4.D.1. of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to
allow construction of 38 townhomes at 7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard within a R-4, Multiple
Family Residence District having the following legal description:
Together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 20, TWP 117, R21 Hennepin County described as beginning at the
Northeast corner of Tract A RLS 1674; thence North 25.00 feet along said East
Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence north 89 degrees
29 minutes 50 seconds west 32.00 feet; thence south 00 degrees 30 minutes 10
seconds west parallel with said East line, a distance of 5.00 feet; thence south
54.00 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds west 34.00 feet to said Line A; thence south
89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds east 59.50 feet along said Line A to the point of
beginning. Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1674, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 98-20-CUP and 00-45-CUP and the effect of the proposed changes to the site plan, tree
replacement and landscaping plan on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the
surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in
the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 98-97 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated July 20, 1998 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 98-97 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
62
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 98-20-CUP and 00-45-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 98-97 (document not filed)
is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a conditional use
permit to the subject property for the purposes of amending the site plan, tree replacement and
landscape plans for construction of 38 townhomes within the R-4 Multiple Family Residential
District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
INCORPORATION OF OLD CONDITIONS:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A
through E, with Exhibit E revised to comply with tree replacement requirements as
outlined in Section 14:4-11 of the Zoning Ordinance; such documents incorporated
by reference herein.
2. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the minimum lot areas, widths, and
setbacks as shown on the preliminary plat.
3. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon filing of the final plat.
4. Prior to Final Plat approval, applicant shall submit landscaping plans which
comply with tree replacement, bufferyard, and landscaping requirements, and at least
one canopy tree shall be provided per lot.
5. Prior to Final Plat approval, applicant shall submit evidence that placement of
easements comply with any requirements of utility companies.
6. Dedication of drainage and utility easements as approved.
7. Fire sprinklers to be included in all townhome units per Fire Department
requirements.
8. Compliance with the General Residential District Regulations is required.
9. A development agreement, homeowner’s association and declaration of covenants
is required to ensure that all improvements are installed in a timely manner, parking
is prohibited on the private street system except where designated, and common
areas (including wetlands, open space, landscaping, ponds and private streets) are
adequately maintained in perpetuity. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit is
contingent upon review and approval of said documents by the City Attorney.
10. An Encroachment Agreement is to be executed between the developer and the
City for developer’s use of City land for turnaround area.
11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be installed per Fire Marshall’s
determination.
12. Permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County
Transportation, and other agencies shall be obtained by the applicant as required
prior to site work.
13. Final grading, utility plans, and stormwater calculations are to be approved by
the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
14. An erosion and sedimentation control plan is to be approved by the Public
Works Department prior to any site work.
63
15. Lighting and irrigation plans are to be approved by the Zoning Administrator
prior to the issuance of building permits.
16. The conditional use permit shall be amended on December 18, 2000 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The developer shall sign new assent forms and revised official exhibits by January
2, 2001.
b. Guest parking areas along the east lot line are to be further defined through
striping and posting of signs, such signs to be approved by the Fire Marshall and
Zoning Administrator.
c. Trees are permitted to be planted on City park land per the approved landscape plan
(which plan is subject to further modification through the planning process and
approval by the City Council). The developer is responsible for installation and
maintenance of all plantings they install on public land.
d. The Development Agreement shall be amended to extend the timeframe for
completion of site improvements and landscape plantings to May 31, 2001 and any
other necessary provisions. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute
such amendment. If the required improvements are not installed within the required
timeframe, the City shall complete the improvements at the developer’s expense.
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 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-45-CUP/N/re/ord
City Clerk
64
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:6-4 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A REDUCED
BUFFERYARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 7100-7102 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Edina Development Company has applied for a variance from Section 14:6-4 of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a reduced bufferyard as shown on the
approved landscape plan instead of the required Bufferyard B along the east lot line for
property located in the R-4 Multiple Family Residential District at the following location,
to-wit:
Together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 20, TWP 117, R21 Hennepin County described as beginning at
the Northeast corner of Tract A RLS 1674; thence North 25.00 feet along
said East Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence
north 89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds west 32.00 feet; thence south 00
degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds west parallel with said East line, a distance
of 5.00 feet; thence south 54.00 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds west 34.00
feet to said Line A; thence south 89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds east
59.50 feet along said Line A to the point of beginning. Tract A of
Registered Land Survey 1674, Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. On October 4, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance on a
3-2 vote.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
65
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 00-46-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a reduced bufferyard as shown on the Approved
Landscape plan instead of the required Bufferyard B on the east lot line is granted based upon
the finding(s) set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest: 00-46-var/N/res/ord
City Clerk
66
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 4, 2000
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 00-445-CUP Major – Request of Edina Development Corporation for a
major amendment to an approved Conditional Use Permit for Excelsior Blvd
Townhomes located at 7100 and 7102 Excelsior Boulevard.
B. Case No. 00-46-VAR – Request of Edina Development Corporation for a
variance for a reduced landscape buffer for Excelsior Blvd Townhomes located at
7100 and 7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Chair Carver stated that there would be a joint public hearing for the variance and
conditional use items.
Sacha Peterson, Planner, presented a staff report and identified some site landscape
changes to the approved plan. She recommended an additional condition to the CUP
that for safety reasons some type of protective guard rails be placed along the top of the
retaining walls that exceed 36 inches in height. She stated that staff recommends
approval of the major CUP amendment and variance subject to the conditions in the
staff report and substantial plan changes.
Mr. Timian questioned the message the City is sending to the development community
when the City approves a project, but allows the developer not to follow the plan.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff has taken enforcement action on the property as a result of
plan changes being implemented without prior approval which has resulted in
substantial delays for the developer.
Mr. Timian stated he is concerned about the loss of wetlands.
Mr. Morris asked what the ramifications would be if the amendment was not approved.
Ms. Peterson stated that if the amendment is not approved, the developer would have to
go back and conform to the original plan.
Mr. Morris asked if Edina Development is the current owner.
Ms. Peterson stated that this is the case.
Mr. Morris questioned the ability of the property owner to follow up and maintain the
development.
67
Gary Rude, Site Superintendent for Edina Development, explained the unanticipated
problems that were experienced. He used pictures to illustrate the problems resulting
with the tree growth on the garages on the adjacent property lines. Trees needed to be
cut down at all costs in order to avoid damaging the garages. He explained the need for
the anchors for the walls. There are 38 rental units proposed to be $1800 - $1900 a
month. He stated the parking will be along the wall and they intend to paint lines to
prevent sloppy parking. Snow removal will be easier without installing the landscaped
bumpouts when not jogging in and out of the bumpouts. The snow would be hauled off
site. He stated that the safety of some retaining wall heights is an issue and they agree
guardrails should be installed. He stated that all the plans and blueprints were approved
by the City.
Mr. Timian asked why the developer decided to put in so many units.
Mr. Rude stated that the high cost of the property was the factor in determining the
number of units and profitability.
Mr. Timian questioned the quality of the devleopment with the lack of green space and
asked the developer if he would live there.
Mr. Rude stated that he would live there. He also said he would be willing to put more
trees in where possible, but it is not possible on top of the retaining wall.
Chair Carver asked staff what the proposal is under the current (approved) plan for how
the bumpout areas would adjoin the existing wall.
Ms. Peterson stated that the approved plan showed a retaining wall along the east lot
line with curbed planting islands or bumpouts adjacent to the retaining wall and
extending about 8 feet into the roadway.
Chair Carver opened the public hearing.
Luke Charpentier, Landscape Architect for the developer, explained the landscape
design for spirea and engelman ivy along the top of the retaining wall.
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, asked Mr. Charpentier to explain why it was not
possible to place a soil mass in front of the retaining wall.
Mr. Charpentier explained his understanding of the bumpouts.
Ms. Peterson explained that the bump outs, as approved, would consist of installing a
curbed island similar to a landscaped island in a parking lot and showed this through
illustration.
Based on staff’s illustrations, Mr. Charpentier agreed the bumpouts could be installed,
but cautioned the size of tree that could be planted.
68
Mr. Rude raised a concern that the full 8 foot wide bumpouts could not be installed due
to the narrower road width.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair Carver closed the public hearing.
Chair Carver asked for a clarification on the purpose of the bump outs.
Ms. Peterson stated that the key reasons for the bump outs are to meet landscape
requirements for aesthetics and provide definition of road area.
Mr. Morris asked for clarification of the location of the ivy that was to be planted on top
of the retaining wall and stet up the back of the garages, and wheter consent of the
garage property owners was obtained.
Mr. Rude stated that the adjacent property owner did give permission for the ivy..
Mr. Garelick stated he believes that this property is an eyesore for the City and he is
opposed to the project.
Mr. Morris said he agrees with Mr. Garelick, but does not see the development going
away. He noted that the staff recommendation is well spelled out and the property
owner and developer are well aware of the sentiment of the Planning Commission. He
said he supports going forward with the amendment to fix the problem.
Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of the major CUP amendment and variances
subject to the conditions in the staff report and verbal recommendation that the safety
features to the retaining walls be worked on with staff to resolve that issue.
Chair Carver stated that it would have been better to have handled the issues earlier,
however he realizes that sometimes plans must change out in the field. The developer
needs to realize the importance of the approval process and that it is taken seriously by
the Planning Commission, and you need to follow the process. He noted that green
space is important, and bump outs and guard rails are absolutely necessary for safety.
Chair Carver called the question and the motion passed 3-2 with Carver, Gothberg,
Morris voting in favor and Garelick and Timian opposed.
69
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7g
Meeting of December 18, 2000
7g. First reading of miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to
the reduction of the 2nd story setbacks for property in the R-1, R-2, and R-3
Use District, clarification of the retail sales and showroom land use definitions,
issuance of permits for properties with existing non-conformities, setbacks for
certain commercial and industrial uses from residentially zoned properties,
clarification of wall deviations for architectural design, notice requirements
for Comprehensive Plan land use and text amendments, and setting the public
hearing at Planning Commission only for Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Case # 00-61-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to pass 1st reading of the ordinance amendments and set
reading for the City Council meeting on January 16, 2001
Background:
The Planning Commission, at their meeting on December 6, 2000, voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the ordinance modifications listed below. The only minor change to the
language proposed to the Planning Commission has been incorporated into the language that is
being presented to the City Council. What follows is a brief summary of the changes proposed.
At the September 11, 2000 City Council Study Session, staff discussed the proposed ordinance
amendments pertaining to issuance of permits for properties with existing non-conformities that
have a date certain with the Council. Staff has been bringing sites into compliance with the code
when the opportunity has arisen. This is when the site requests a PUD or the building is
undertaking major modifications and a building permit is required. As well, the current code
requires all non-conformities to be removed from the site or made to conform to the code prior to
any Conditional Use Permit being issued. Sites with Special Permits have been addressed on a
case-by-case basis when they have requested amendments to their Special Permits. The Code
notes that these sites should be made to comply to the extent feasible and reasonable. Some sites
with non-conforming lighting have also been brought into compliance when a complaint about
the lighting has been received. In order to be more consistent, staff is proposing that non-
conformities be brought into compliance to an extent reasonable and possible when there is a
CUP, PUD, amendment to an existing Special Permits, or when a building addition is proposed
that increases the leasable floor area or number of residential units.
At a recent City Council Study Session, staff discussed the proposed ordinance amendments
pertaining to the reduction of the second story setbacks. We have had several requests to expand
70
single family dwellings by the addition of a second story. The main reason is for a desire for
more “move-up” housing for current residents in St. Louis Park. The current code requires a
larger setback for homes that are two stories. Most of the single story homes are built either at
the required setback, or already encroaching into the setback. Therefore, staff cannot approve
any building permits in this scenario. The proposed amendment reduces the setback for 2nd
stories so that homes will have the same setback requirement regardless if they are 1 or 2 stories.
Over the past year, the Board of Zoning Appeals has approved two variances to permit animal
handling within certain distances to abutting “R” Use Districts. These uses were a cat clinic and
a bird adoption center. In both instances, the parcels abutted either a public right-of-way or a
railroad right-of-way, both of which were zoned residential. Based on these cases, staff is
proposing that these setback distances be from parcels that are used or subdivided for residential
use in an “R” Use District versus any property in an “R” Use District.
As well, staff has had some enforcement issues with retail sales in industrial districts due to a
lack of clarity between the retail sales and showroom land use definitions. In order to clarify
these definitions and help prevent retail operations from locating in industrial areas, staff is
proposing to amend the current showroom definition to avoid any further complications.
Another proposed ordinance amendment is simply to clarify the interpretation of wall deviations
within the architectural design section of the code. This issue was raised just recently on a
proposed project within the city where the applicant stated that how the code is currently
structured, wall deviations are not needed until the wall length to wall height ratio exceeds 4:1.
However staff’s interpretation of the code has been to require wall deviations when this ratio
exceeds 2:1.
Finally, staff is proposing to clarify notification requirements for Comprehensive Plan
amendments and to hold the public hearing at Planning Commission only. Currently the code
requires that we send hearing notices to all adjacent municipalities, the school districts, and
watershed districts regardless of whether it is a minor text amendment or land use change that is
any distance from the adjacent municipal border. Staff is proposing to refine that language and
also suggests that the hearing be held at the Planning Commission only, which is consistent with
all other types of land use applications.
Issues:
• Reducing the setbacks for 2nd story additions.
• Clarification on the interpretation for when wall deviations are required.
• Requiring non-conformities on a sites to be brought into compliance prior to issuance of
a CUP, PUD, amendment to an existing SP, and building permits for additions which
increase the leasable floor area or density.
• Clarify the land use definitions for retail sales and showroom.
• Reducing the setbacks for certain commercial and industrial uses from residentially
zoned property.
• Eliminate the public hearing requirement at the City Council for Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
71
• Clarify when Comprehensive Plan and zoning text amendments should be sent to
neighboring communities, Hennepin County, school districts, and watershed districts.
Analysis of Issues:
• Reducing the setbacks for 2nd story additions.
Staff has had to deny several permits over the past years when citizens have wanted to improve
their property by adding a second story onto the existing home. The additions may have been
needed for many different reasons including the increase in the size of the families. Most of the
single family homes, especially those within the R-2 District were built at or within the required
setback distances. The code currently has a greater setback for homes with 2 stories versus
homes that only have one story. The main reason for building the second story versus building a
one-story addition is due to the lack of open space on the lot. In most situations, the only way to
build onto the house would be to build back towards the rear property line. This at times has also
caused problems with reducing the rear yard so that detached garages would no longer be
conforming, or just plain eliminating any usable outdoor play space.
Therefore, in order to remain consistent with the concept of allowing move up housing, staff is
proposing that second story setbacks be reduced so that they are the same as one-story homes.
The code will still require that a minimum of 10 feet be located between any two single family
homes, so there will still be open area between homes.
Section 14:5-4.2(F)(5) - Setbacks in the R-1 District
“The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. For building heights up to
18 feet: Nine (9) feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other, except when there is an
attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6
feet. For buildings heights between 18 and 30 feet: 9 feet on one yard and 11 feet on the
other, except when there is an attached accessible garage from the street or when the lot
abuts an alley, both may be 9 feet.”
Section 14:5-4.3(F)(5) - Setbacks in the R-2 District
“The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. For buildings heights up to
18 feet: Seven (7) feet on one yard and 5 feet on the other, except when there is an
attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 5
feet. For buildings heights between 18 and 30 feet: 7 feet on one yard and 9 feet on the
other, except when there is an attached accessible garage from the street or when the lot
abuts an alley, both may be 7 feet.”
Section 14:5-4.4(F)(6) - Setbacks in the R-3 District
“The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. For buildings heights up to
18 feet: Nine (9) feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other, except when there is an
attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6
72
feet. For buildings heights between 18 and 35 feet: 9 feet on one yard and 11 feet on the
other, except when there is an attached accessible garage from the street or when the lot
abuts an alley, both may be 9 feet.”
• Clarification on the interpretation for when wall deviations are required.
On a current project, it was brought to our attention that the way the current code is written on
wall deviations, it is possible to interpret the code as saying that wall deviations are not needed
until the wall length to wall height ratio exceeds 4:1. Staff has been interpreting and enforcing
the code as saying that building deviations are needed once the wall length to wall height ratio
exceeds 2:1, and greater deviations are needed for wall length to wall height ratios exceeding
2:1. In order to prevent any misinterpretation of the code staff wants to clarify this section so it
is consistent with the way it has been interpreted.
Section 14:6-6.2(G) - Wall deviation for architectural design
“… on adjacent sites.
No unbroken building wall may exceed a 4 to 1 ratio of wall length to wall height, and
each building wall deviation may at the 4:1 ratio shall be a the minimum depth of 4 feet;
where a maximum 3:1 wall length to wall height ratio is used, the minimum depth of
each building wall deviation may be reduced to 3 feet; where a maximum 2:1 wall length
to wall height ratio is used, the minimum depth of each building wall deviation may be
reduced to 2 feet.”
Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to wall
height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall deviation at
the 2:1 ratio shall be 2 feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be
increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations are increased to 3 feet. The
unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the depth of the
building wall deviations are increased to 4 feet. The building wall deviations must
extend from grade to the roof, or top of the parapet.
• Requiring non-conformities on a site to be brought into compliance prior to issuance of
a CUP, PUD, amendment to an existing SP, and building permits for additions which
increase the leasable floor area or density.
This issue was discussed at a recent City Council Study Session. Staff informed the Council that
the Zoning Code includes dates by which certain non-conformities were supposed to be brought
into compliance. However, notification of the dates was never sent to property owners, and there
are hundreds of properties that include non-conformities. As a policy, staff has been requiring
compliance when the properties come in for building permits for additions (other than minor
foyers and the like) or when they apply for a CUP (the code is clear that non-conformities must
be removed for CUP approval). Staff has also been working with property owners to bring
lighting into compliance when complaints have been received. Staff was looking for direction
73
on whether to begin notification and retroactively enforce the date certains for non-conformities
on properties, or to clarify the code more in keeping with our current policies. The date certains
apply to landscaping, parking lots, signage, and lighting. After some discussion, the Council was
in favor of expanding the existing language for Conditional Use Permits in the non-conforming
section of the code to include the PUD, amendments to existing Special Permits, and for building
permits for additions which increase the leaseable floor area or density. However, the dates
certain would remain in the code so that we could continue to work with property owners on a
complaint basis as well.
Section 14:7-2(F) - Non-conformity general requirements
“Conditional Use Permits City Approvals - The City may not issue a Conditional Use
Permit, Planned Unit Development, or building permit for an addition which increases
the leasable floor area or density for any property which contains a non-conformity
unless the non-conformity is removed as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit
approval. Amendments to existing Special Permits shall be administered in accordance
with Section 14:8-6(D) of this ordinance.
a. Exception: If a new use requiring a CUP, PUD, or Special Permit Amendment
is proposed for part of a multi-tenant building, and there are no exterior
modifications needed to accommodate the new tenant which would result in an
increase in FAR, GFAR, building height, density, or a decrease in required yards,
or other substantial change (other than property improvement to meet Building
Code requirements); then the City may issue a CUP, PUD, or Special Permit
Amendment provided the following standards are met:…”
• Clarify the land use definitions for retail sales and showroom.
Over the past six months, the interpretation for the land use definition of showroom has been
questioned. Both times, the proposed occupants were trying to define a retail store as showroom
in order to occupy buildings located in industrial districts. Both times, staff reached agreements
with the applicants in limiting how their businesses could be operated. However, enforcement of
these agreements has been difficult. In order to eliminate the vagueness of the showroom
definition, staff is proposing to clarify what a showroom is and also the differences between it
and retail sales.
Section 14:5-3.2 (D)(26) - Retail land use definition
“RETAIL - A facility where merchandise or equipment is displayed, rented, or sold and
where delivery of merchandise or equipment to the ultimate consumer is made; includes
limited production, repair or processing as an accessory use. Hours of operation
generally begin after the a.m. peak traffic period and extend to time ranges from 5:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; although some convenience stores and grocery stores are open 24
hours per day.
74
Characteristics generally include high parking demand and high off peak traffic
generation; generally prefers high visibility and access to major thoroughfares. This use
includes but is not limited to camera shops, clothing stores, department stores, grocery
stores, discount stores, jewelry stores, delicatessens, retail bakeries, toy stores; but
excludes restaurants, bars, pawn shops, motor vehicle sales, and motor fuel stations.”
Section 14:5-3.2(E)(10) - Showroom land use definition
“SHOWROOM - The display only of samples of merchandise and equipment where a
sales agreement with a consumer is conducted and it sale to a customer where delivery of
purchased merchandise is made from a warehouse that is not accessible to the consumer
and is physically separated from the showroom by a minimum 8’-0” tall permanent wall.
Merchandise or equipment which is sold displayed is typically large bulky items and
includes, but is not limited to furniture, appliances, plumbing fixtures, lighting, and
carpeting. Characteristics include hours of operation between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
weekdays and during some weekend hours.”
• Reducing the setbacks for certain commercial and industrial uses from residentially
zoned property.
Recently, the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted two variances where the condition of
approval required a certain distance be maintained between that use and residentially zoned
property. In both instances, the land use was located across a public right-of-way (street and
railroad) and the Board granted the variance stating that the applicant was trying to meet the
intent of the code. Staff is proposing to change the language so that instead of having this
setback distance measured from a residential district, it is measured from residentially used
parcels or vacant parcels that have been subdivided for residential use. This would eliminate
rights-of-way, parks, schools, religious institutions, and other institutional uses.
With this, staff has reviewed the ordinance and found 57 sections of the code where this
application applies. The distance requirements will not change for these different sections, but
instead the language on where the distance is measured to will be amended.
The sections affected by this amendment are:
C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(6)(b) - Public Service Structure
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any abutting property located
in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(7)(b) - Animal Handling
75
“Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
abutting properties in an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(8)(a) - Appliance, Small Engine, and Bicycle Repair
“Engines shall not be operated or tested outside of a structure if the use is located within
300 feet of any “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided
for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(11)(b) - Clubs & Lodges w/o Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(12)(c) - Food Service
“No building may be located a minimum of 25 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16)(a) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/o Liquor
“The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(17)(b) - Restaurants w/o Liquor
“Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
C-2 - General Commercial
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(5)(b) - Public Service Structures
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any abutting property located
in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(6)(b) - Utility Substation
“No structures shall be located within 200 feet from any lot in an “R” Use District parcel
that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
76
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(7)(b) - Animal Handling
“Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
abutting properties in an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(8)(a) - Appliance. Small Engine, and Bicycle Repair
“Engines shall not be operated or tested outside of a structure if the use is located within
300 feet of any “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided
for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(9)(b) - Clubs & Lodges w/o Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(10)(a) - Convention/Exhibition Hall
“All buildings, structures, and truck maneuvering areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet of any lot lines abutting property in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned
residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(11)(b) - Food Service
“Building shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(12)(b) - Hotel/Motel
“All buildings and structures shall be located a minimum of 100 feet of any property in
an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential
use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(15)(e) - Outdoor Sales
“The use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet of any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17)(a) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/o Liquor
“The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
77
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(18)(b) - Restaurants w/o Liquor
“Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any abutting property in an “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(19)(d) - Shopping Center
“All buildings and structures shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet of any abutting
property in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(a) - Parking Ramp - Principal Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(b) - Parking Ramp - Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(e) - Parking Ramp - Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(1)(h) - Motor Fuel Station
“No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(3)(a) - Motor Vehicle Service & Repair
“No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
78
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(4)(b) - Restaurants w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(5)(b) - Clubs and Lodges w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9)(b) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
O - Office
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(3)(a) - Hospital
“Buildings located within 100 feet of any residentially zoned property parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use shall be limited to four stories
or 45 feet.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(8)(b) - Public Service Structure
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(9)(b) - Clubs and Lodges w/o Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(10)(a) - Convention/Exhibition Hall
“All buildings, structures, and truck maneuvering areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet of all lot lines abutting property in an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned
residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(11)(a) - Hotel/Motel
79
“Building heights shall be limited to four stories or 45 feet within 100 feet of any “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14)(b) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/o Liquor
“The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(15)(d) - Restaurants w/o Liquor (structure)
“Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any abutting property in an “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(a) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(b) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(e) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(1)(g) - Motor Fuel Station
“No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(2)(c) - Restaurants w/ Liquor
80
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(6)(b) - Clubs and Lodges w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(8)(b) - Private Indoor Entertainment w. Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
I-P - Industrial Park
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(2)(a) - Public Service Structure
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any lot in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(3)(b) - Utility Substation
“No structures shall be located within 200 feet from any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(5)(a) - Manufacturing/Procession
“All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100
feet from any property located in and “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and
used or subdivided for residential use and where possible shall be located on the side of
the building farthest from an “R” Use District the parcel that is zoned residential and used
or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(a) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
81
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(b) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(d) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(10)(a) - Catering
“All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100
feet from any property located in and “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and
used or subdivided for residential use and where possible shall be located on the side of
the building farthest from an “R” Use District the parcel that is zoned residential and used
or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(a) - Parking Ramp as an Accessory Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(b) - Parking Ramp as an Accessory Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(d) - Parking Ramp as an Accessory Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
82
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(6)(b) - Motor Vehicle Repair as Accessory Use
“No outdoor repair or maintenance shall be conducted within 100 feet of an “R” Use
District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
I-G, General Industrial
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(2)(c) - Public Service Structure
“Structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property located within “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(3)(b) - Utility Substation
“No structure shall be located within 200 feet from any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(5)(a) - Animal Handling
“Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
abutting properties located within an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(6)(a) - Appliance. Small Engine, and Bicycle Repair
“Outside operating or testing of engines shall be prohibited within 300 feet of any “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(7)(b) - Auto Body/Painting
“The facility shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from any parcel in an “R” Use
District that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(a) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
83
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(b) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(e) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-7.3(E)(7)(b) - Motor Vehicle Repair as Accessory Use
“No outdoor repair or maintenance shall be conducted within 100 feet of an “R” Use
District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
• Eliminate the public hearing requirement at the City Council for Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Recently, staff revised the code to require public hearings for city approvals only at the Planning
Commission instead of splitting them between the Planning Commission and the City Council.
When the revisions were made, the requirement for an additional public hearing for
Comprehensive Plan amendments at the City Council was not removed. The proposed
amendment will keep the public hearing notice consistent with the other approval processes. The
City Council can still accept public comments at the meeting, but it will not be published as a
formal public hearing.
Section 14:8-4.4(B)(4) - Setting public hearing notice for the City Council meeting.
“The Planning Commission shall consider the testimony received at the public hearing,
the staff reports, and other material it deems pertinent and shall report its findings and
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and set a date for a public hearing on the
request before the City Council.”
• Clarify when Comprehensive Plan and zoning text amendments should be sent to
neighboring communities, Hennepin County, school districts, and watershed districts.
84
Staff is proposing to clarify notification requirements for Comprehensive Plan land use
amendments and text amendments. Currently the code requires that we send hearing notices to
all adjacent municipalities, Hennepin County, the school districts, and watershed districts
regardless of whether it is a minor text amendment or land use change that is any distance from
the adjacent municipal border. The Metropolitan Council policies only require that we send
major updates to plans and plan sections to adjacent governmental units and school districts. The
requirement is not viewed as applicable to most other plan amendments and most cities use their
discretion in sending such notices. Therefore, staff is proposing the following:
Section 14:8-4.4(B)(2) - Amendment process for Comprehensive Plan changes.
“When Comprehensive Plan land use amendments are proposed within 500 feet of a
municipal boundary or County Road, or when land use or text amendments may have
impacts on the affected school or watershed districts, the Director of Community
Development shall forward a copy of the proposed request to adjacent municipalities, the
affected school district, Hennepin County, and the affected watershed district within ten
(10) working days of receipt of the request by the City”
Section 14:8-4.4(C) - Exceptions to Comprehensive Plan notification requirements.
“Exceptions: When changes to the Comprehensive Plan involve a complete
Comprehensive Plan revision, notice to individual property owners is not required.
However, notice of public hearing at the Planning Commission shall be published in the
official newspaper on three consecutive weeks, the latest at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing. Notice shall be sent to adjacent municipalities, Hennepin County,
affected watershed districts, and affected school districts for review and comment of the
proposed plan revision.”
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator, 952-924-2592
Approved by:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
85
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS
14:5-3.2(D)(26), 14:5-3.2(E)(10), 14:5-4.2(F)(5), 14:5-4.3(F)(5), 14:5-4.4(F)(6), 14:5-5.2,
14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2, 14:5-7.2, 14:5-7.3, 14:6-6.2(G), 14:7-2(F), 14:8-4.4(B)(2), 14:8-4.4(C)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 00-61-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-3.2(D)(26), 14:5-3.2(E)(10),
14:5-4.2(F)(5), 14:5-4.3(F)(5), 14:5-4.4(F)(6), 14:5-5.2, 14:5-5.3, 14:5-6.2, 14:5-7.2, 14:5-7.3,
14:6-6.2(G), 14:7-2(F), 14:8-4.4(B)(2) and 14:8-4.4(C) are hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14:5-3.2 (D)(26) - Retail land use definition
“RETAIL - A facility where merchandise or equipment is displayed, rented, or sold and
where delivery of merchandise or equipment to the ultimate consumer is made; includes
limited production, repair or processing as an accessory use. Hours of operation
generally begin after the a.m. peak traffic period and extend to time ranges from 5:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; although some convenience stores and grocery stores are open 24
hours per day.
Characteristics generally include high parking demand and high off peak traffic
generation; generally prefers high visibility and access to major thoroughfares. This use
includes but is not limited to camera shops, clothing stores, department stores, grocery
stores, discount stores, jewelry stores, delicatessens, retail bakeries, toy stores; but
excludes restaurants, bars, pawn shops, motor vehicle sales, and motor fuel stations.”
Section 14:5-3.2(E)(10) - Showroom land use definition
“SHOWROOM - The display only of samples of merchandise and equipment where a
sales agreement with a consumer is conducted and it sale to a customer where delivery of
purchased merchandise is made from a warehouse that is not accessible to the consumer
and is physically separated from the showroom by a minimum 8’-0” tall permanent wall.
Merchandise or equipment which is sold displayed is typically large bulky items and
includes, but is not limited to furniture, appliances, plumbing fixtures, lighting, and
carpeting. Characteristics include hours of operation between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
weekdays and during some weekend hours.”
86
Section 14:5-4.2(F)(5) - Setbacks in the R-1 District
“The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. For building heights up to
18 feet: Nine (9) feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other, except when there is an
attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6
feet. For buildings heights between 18 and 30 feet: 9 feet on one yard and 11 feet on the
other, except when there is an attached accessible garage from the street or when the lot
abuts an alley, both may be 9 feet.”
Section 14:5-4.3(F)(5) - Setbacks in the R-2 District
“The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. For buildings heights up to
18 feet: Seven (7) feet on one yard and 5 feet on the other, except when there is an
attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 5
feet. For buildings heights between 18 and 30 feet: 7 feet on one yard and 9 feet on the
other, except when there is an attached accessible garage from the street or when the lot
abuts an alley, both may be 7 feet.”
Section 14:5-4.4(F)(6) - Setbacks in the R-3 District
“The following minimum requirements… Side Yard Width. For buildings heights up to
18 feet: Nine (9) feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other, except when there is an
attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6
feet. For buildings heights between 18 and 35 feet: 9 feet on one yard and 11 feet on the
other, except when there is an attached accessible garage from the street or when the lot
abuts an alley, both may be 9 feet.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(6)(b) - Public Service Structure
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any abutting property located
in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(7)(b) - Animal Handling
“Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
abutting properties in an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(8)(a) - Appliance, Small Engine, and Bicycle Repair
“Engines shall not be operated or tested outside of a structure if the use is located within
300 feet of any “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided
for residential use.”
87
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(11)(b) - Clubs & Lodges w/o Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(12)(c) - Food Service
“No building may be located a minimum of 25 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(16)(a) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/o Liquor
“The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.2(C)(17)(b) - Restaurants w/o Liquor
“Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(5)(b) - Public Service Structures
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any abutting property located
in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(6)(b) - Utility Substation
“No structures shall be located within 200 feet from any lot in an “R” Use District parcel
that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(7)(b) - Animal Handling
“Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
abutting properties in an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(8)(a) - Appliance. Small Engine, and Bicycle Repair
“Engines shall not be operated or tested outside of a structure if the use is located within
300 feet of any “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided
for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(9)(b) - Clubs & Lodges w/o Liquor
88
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(10)(a) - Convention/Exhibition Hall
“All buildings, structures, and truck maneuvering areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet of any lot lines abutting property in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned
residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(11)(b) - Food Service
“Building shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(12)(b) - Hotel/Motel
“All buildings and structures shall be located a minimum of 100 feet of any property in
an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential
use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(15)(e) - Outdoor Sales
“The use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet of any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(17)(a) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/o Liquor
“The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(18)(b) - Restaurants w/o Liquor
“Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any abutting property in an “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(19)(d) - Shopping Center
“All buildings and structures shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet of any abutting
property in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(a) - Parking Ramp - Principal Use (height)
89
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(b) - Parking Ramp - Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-5.3(C)(21)(e) - Parking Ramp - Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(1)(h) - Motor Fuel Station
“No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(3)(a) - Motor Vehicle Service & Repair
“No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(4)(b) - Restaurants w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(5)(b) - Clubs and Lodges w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
90
Section 14:5-5.3(D)(9)(b) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(3)(a) - Hospital
“Buildings located within 100 feet of any residentially zoned property parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use shall be limited to four stories
or 45 feet.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(8)(b) - Public Service Structure
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(9)(b) - Clubs and Lodges w/o Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(10)(a) - Convention/Exhibition Hall
“All buildings, structures, and truck maneuvering areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet of all lot lines abutting property in an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned
residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(11)(a) - Hotel/Motel
“Building heights shall be limited to four stories or 45 feet within 100 feet of any “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(14)(b) - Private Indoor Entertainment w/o Liquor
“The structures in which the use is conducted shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(15)(d) - Restaurants w/o Liquor (structure)
“Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any abutting property in an “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(a) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (height)
91
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(b) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-6.2(C)(19)(e) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(1)(g) - Motor Fuel Station
“No public address system shall be audible from any property located in an “R” Use
District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(2)(c) - Restaurants w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(6)(b) - Clubs and Lodges w/ Liquor
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-6.2(D)(8)(b) - Private Indoor Entertainment w. Liquor
92
“The building housing the use shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any property
located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(2)(a) - Public Service Structure
“All structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any lot in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(3)(b) - Utility Substation
“No structures shall be located within 200 feet from any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(5)(a) - Manufacturing/Procession
“All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100
feet from any property located in and “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and
used or subdivided for residential use and where possible shall be located on the side of
the building farthest from an “R” Use District the parcel that is zoned residential and used
or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(a) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(b) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(7)(d) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
93
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-7.2(C)(10)(a) - Catering
“All outdoor activities such as loading and unloading shall be located a minimum of 100
feet from any property located in and “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and
used or subdivided for residential use and where possible shall be located on the side of
the building farthest from an “R” Use District the parcel that is zoned residential and used
or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(a) - Parking Ramp as an Accessory Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(b) - Parking Ramp as an Accessory Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(3)(d) - Parking Ramp as an Accessory Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-7.2(F)(6)(b) - Motor Vehicle Repair as Accessory Use
“No outdoor repair or maintenance shall be conducted within 100 feet of an “R” Use
District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(2)(c) - Public Service Structure
“Structures shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any property located within “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
94
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(3)(b) - Utility Substation
“No structure shall be located within 200 feet from any “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(5)(a) - Animal Handling
“Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from
abutting properties located within an “R” Use District any parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(6)(a) - Appliance. Small Engine, and Bicycle Repair
“Outside operating or testing of engines shall be prohibited within 300 feet of any “R”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(7)(b) - Auto Body/Painting
“The facility shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from any parcel in an “R” Use
District that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(a) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (height)
“The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3”
Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use
may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and perpendicular to the line and
extending upward away from the any “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use line at a slope of 5 horizontal
feet for each vertical foot.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(b) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (structure)
“The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any
property located in an “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential and used or
subdivided for residential use, shall be 50 feet.”
Section 14:5-7.3(C)(13)(e) - Parking Ramp as Principal Use (lighting)
“If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an “R” Use District
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, all light sources
on the top deck of a parking ramp shall be below the sight lines drawn from a point one
(1) foot above the light source to any point within the “R” Use District parcel that is
zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use ten feet lower than the
maximum structure height of the “R” that Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the
95
wall of the parking ramp nearest to the “R” Use District parcel that is zoned residential
and used or subdivided for residential use”
Section 14:5-7.3(E)(7)(b) - Motor Vehicle Repair as Accessory Use
“No outdoor repair or maintenance shall be conducted within 100 feet of an “R” Use
District any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.”
Section 14:6-6.2(G) - Wall deviation for architectural design
“… on adjacent sites.
No unbroken building wall may exceed a 4 to 1 ratio of wall length to wall height, and
each building wall deviation may at the 4:1 ratio shall be a the minimum depth of 4 feet;
where a maximum 3:1 wall length to wall height ratio is used, the minimum depth of
each building wall deviation may be reduced to 3 feet; where a maximum 2:1 wall length
to wall height ratio is used, the minimum depth of each building wall deviation may be
reduced to 2 feet.”
Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to wall
height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall deviation at
the 2:1 ratio shall be 2 feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be
increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations are increased to 3 feet. The
unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the depth of the
building wall deviations are increased to 4 feet. The building wall deviations must
extend from grade to the roof, or top of the parapet.
Section 14:7-2(F) - Non-conformity general requirements
“Conditional Use Permits City Approvals - The City may not issue a Conditional Use
Permit, Planned Unit Development, or building permit for an addition which increases
the leasable floor area or density for any property which contains a non-conformity
unless the non-conformity is removed as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit
approval. Amendments to existing Special Permits shall be administered in accordance
with Section 14:8-6(D) of this ordinance.
a. Exception: If a new use requiring a CUP, PUD, or Special Permit Amendment
is proposed for part of a multi-tenant building, and there are no exterior
modifications needed to accommodate the new tenant which would result in an
increase in FAR, GFAR, building height, density, or a decrease in required yards,
or other substantial change (other than property improvement to meet Building
Code requirements); then the City may issue a CUP, PUD, or Special Permit
Amendment provided the following standards are met:…”
Section 14:8-4.4(B)(4) - Setting public hearing notice for the City Council meeting.
96
“The Planning Commission shall consider the testimony received at the public hearing,
the staff reports, and other material it deems pertinent and shall report its findings and
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall receive the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and set a date for a public hearing on the
request before the City Council.”
Section 14:8-4.4(B)(2) - Amendment process for Comprehensive Plan changes.
“When Comprehensive Plan land use amendments are proposed within 500 feet of a
municipal boundary or County Road, or when land use or text amendments may have
impacts on the affected school or watershed districts, the Director of Community
Development shall forward a copy of the proposed request to adjacent municipalities, the
affected school district, Hennepin County, and the affected watershed district within ten
(10) working days of receipt of the request by the City”
Section 14:8-4.4(C) - Exceptions to Comprehensive Plan notification requirements.
“Exceptions: When changes to the Comprehensive Plan involve a complete
Comprehensive Plan revision, notice to individual property owners is not required.
However, notice of public hearing at the Planning Commission shall be published in the
official newspaper on three consecutive weeks, the latest at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing. Notice shall be sent to adjacent municipalities, Hennepin County,
affected watershed districts, and affected school districts for review and comment of the
proposed plan revision.”
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 00-61-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 2, 2000
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney 00-61-ZA-N/res/ord
97
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 9, 2018
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Motion to waive readings of resolutions and ordinances
2. Motion to adopt a resolution amending Special Use Permit and granting an
extension to August 31, 2001 for Grovew Academy, 3200 Highway 100.
3. Motion to Approve Contract for the Administration of the Blackstone
Neighborhood Grant/Deferred Loan Program with the Center for Energy and
Environment effective 1/01/01
5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
c. Cable Television Advisory Commission Minutes of October 19, 2000
d. Vendor Claims
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the amount of $145,000 to repay
MSA approved construction costs.
6. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a
fire sprinkler system at 5727 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner.
98
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
December 18, 2000
2.. Motion to adopt a resolution amending Special Use Permit and granting an
extension to August 31, 2001 for Groves Academy, 3200 Highway 100.
Background:
On October 4, 1999 Groves Academy received approval for an amended Special Use Permit for
a building expansion to their school (which is located at Highway 100 and Minnetonka
Boulevard). Due to the need to conduct a capital campaign for the expansion, the construction
timeline has been extended beyond the one-year duration of the Special Use Permit (the Permit
holder is required to obtain a building permit within one year of granting of the Special Permit).
Groves is therefore requesting an amendment to the Special Permit to extend the expiration to
August, 2001. Staff believes the extension is reasonable.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit and an extension to
August 31, 2001.
Attachments:
• Proposed resolution
• Letter from applicant requesting extension
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planner
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
99
RESOLUTION NO.
Amends Resolution 99-112 and 7202
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-112 ADOPTED ON
OCTOBER 4, 1999 AND GRANTING CONTINUED SPECIAL USE PERMIT
UNDER SECTION 8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW EXPANSION TO A SCHOOL AT 3200
HIGHWAY 100
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Groves Learning Center has made application to the City Council for an
amendment to a continued special use permit under Section 8-6 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code to permit an extension to August, 2001 for the expansion to a school at 3200 Highway 100
within a R-4 Multiple Family Residence District having the following legal description:
Lots one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), nine
(9) and ten (10), inclusive, “Oak Park 2nd”, according to the recorded plat thereof,
being also described as the South eight hundred fifty (850) feet of that part of the
Northwest one-quarter (NW ¼) of the Northwest one-quarter (NW ¼) of Section
Six (6), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-four (24) West of the
Fourth Principal Meridian lying East of the West 172.7 feet thereof and West of
State Highway No. 100, according to the United States Government survey
thereof
The South 850 feet of the West 172.7 feet of the West one-half (W ½) of the West
one-half (W ½) of the Northwest quarter (NW ¼) of the Northwest quarter (NW
¼) of Section Six (6), Township Twenth-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-four
(24) West of the Fourth Principal Meridian according to the United States
Government Survey thereof
Lot 29 in “Norwaldo” according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the
office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota
(Abstract and Torrens)
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Files 82-52-SP and 99-23-CUP and the effect of the proposed school expansion on the health,
safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on
the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a special use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 7202 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated august 16, 1982 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
100
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 7202 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 82-52-SP and 99-23-CUP are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 99-112 filed as Document
No. 7232044 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a
continued special use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting an expansion
to a school within the R-4 Multiple Family Zoning District at the location described above based
on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site Plan,
as modified by the addition of eleven parking spaces.
2. Any new planting improvements on the site plan shall be completed by October 15, 1982.
3. The continued special permit shall be amended on October 4, 1999 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits B
through H, Exhibit E to be revised per condition b.3) below, such documents
incorporated by reference herein.
b. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall comply with the following:
1) Obtain an erosion control permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and forward a copy of permit to the City.
2) Obtain written permission from MNDOT for storm sewer pipe on public right
of way and driveway access changes along Highway 100 frontage road.
3) Exhibit E, Elevations, shall be revised to show no more than 10% Class III
materials on any façade. In addition, building materials samples shall be
submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator and Planning
Supervisor to ensure architectural integration and compatibility of all
materials used.
c. Approval of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements.
d. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage.
e. If it becomes necessary to increase the number of parking stalls to meet City
requirements for the approved building expansion, an increase of up to 10 stalls
may be approved administratively, provided that setback and bufferyard
requirements are met.
101
f. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
4. The conditional use permit shall be amended on December 18, 2000 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and extend the time to obtain a building permit to August 31,
2001.
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 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
99-23-CUP2/N/res/ord
Attest:
City Clerk
102
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
December 18, 2000
3. Motion to Approve Contract for the Administration of the Blackstone
Neighborhood Grant/Deferred Loan Program with the Center for Energy and
Environment effective 1/01/01
Background:
At the September 11, 2000 Study Session, Council directed staff to implement a proposed pilot
neighborhood revitalization initiative with the single family Blackstone Neighborhood. The
Council allocated $150,000 of FY 1999 and 2000 CDBG dollars for a targeted neighborhood
revitalization effort. The Blackstone Neighborhood process has been an ongoing effort
throughout 2000 and included a study conducted by Decision Resources, neighborhood
workshops, mailed surveys and discussions with Council at Study Sessions.
The 2 year pilot project is designed to address the neighborhood’s general appearance and
livability issues. To that end one of the pilot components is a matching grant and deferred loan
program to stimulate exterior home improvements. Blackstone homeowners will be eligible for
a matching grant up to $2,000, or a deferred, 5% simple interest loan up to $4,000, for qualifying
exterior home improvements. The eligible improvements include exterior painting, repair or
replacement of: siding, stucco, railings, gutters, downspouts, fences, porches, decks, retaining
walls, doors, windows, garages, roofs, sidewalk, driveways, and steps as well as structural and
foundation repair and permanent landscaping. The City has committed $80,000 to fund the
loan/grants and administrative costs associated with program delivery. The target date for the
first completed improvement is May 2001.
Staff recommends that a contract administrator be hired to assist staff and the Neighborhood
Association with marketing, and to process applications, provide rehab advice, and to ensure that
applications and improvements meet the program guidelines. The administrator would also
originate grants and loans. Staff has interviewed two agencies that provide residential grant/loan
administration to cities and suggest that the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) be
selected. CEE provides similar services to the Cities of Fridley, New Brighton, Minneapolis,
Columbia Heights, Blaine and Champlin. Since CEE currently administers the St. Louis Park
Discount Loan Program, they will be able to seamlessly leverage the discount loans with the
pilot matching grant and deferred loan for residents. In addition CEE’s contract is performance
based, and they will be paid only at the completion of actual improvements. It is estimated that
services provided by CEE will be approximately 10% of the total $80,000 allocated, as outlined
in the table on the following page.
103
Table of CEE Contract Costs:
Service Activity Number Fee Total $
Grant Processing 20 $200 $4,000
Loan Processing 10 $350 $3,500
Rehab Advice 4 $75 $300
Post Inspection when no permit is required 10 $60 $600
TOTAL $8,400
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract with CEE to provide
contract administration for the Blackstone Grant/Loan Program. The contract, which has been
reviewed by the City Attorney, would be effective from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.
Attachments:
Contract
Program Description
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
104
LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT
This LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this __________ day of
December, 2000, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, with offices at 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, (“CITY”), and CENTER FOR ENERGY
AND ENVIRONMENT, with offices at 211 North 1st Street North, Suite 455, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401 (“CEE”),
RECITALS
A. CITY has a need for certain professional services and desires to retain CEE to provide
said services, all subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.
B. CEE is qualified to provide the desired professional services and desires to provide
said services for CITY, all subject to the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises contained in
this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services/Scope of Work
CEE shall originate matching grants and deferred loans as described in the program
description in EXHIBIT A.
2. Compensation
CITY shall compensate CEE for the Services as follows:
105
2.1 CITY shall pay a Grant Origination Fee of $200.00 for each grant originated
under this agreement. The Origination Fee shall compensate CEE for the
administrative costs of processing and closing each grant.
2.2 CITY shall pay a Loan Origination Fee of $350.00 for each loan originated
under this agreement. The Origination Fee shall compensate CEE for the
administrative costs of processing and closing each loan. Mortgage filing costs
shall be paid by the borrower.
2.3 CITY shall pay a Property Inspection Fee of $75.00 for each inspection
performed under this agreement. The Property Inspection will include a visit to
the property to identify and prioritize potential exterior rehabilitation
opportunities with the property owner.
2.4 CITY shall pay a Post-Installation Inspection fee of $60.00 for each inspection
performed under this agreement. CEE shall perform a Post-Installation
Inspection whenever a building permit is not required by City ordinance.
2.5 CEE shall submit to CITY, on a monthly basis, an invoice for the principal
amount of the loans and grants originated and the services performed under this
Agreement. CEE shall provide a copy of the participation agreement as
documentation of the grants and loans originated with each invoice. CEE shall
also provide on a monthly basis, a program activity report showing the amount
of funds used through the reporting period and the remaining balance of funds
available.
2.6 CITY shall pay each properly submitted invoice within thirty (30) days after
submission of the invoice by CEE.
3. CITY’s Obligations
3.1 CITY shall commit $80,000 to fund the origination and administrative costs
associated with the delivery of the program.
3.2 CITY shall make reasonable efforts to respond promptly to requests from CEE
for information and approvals regarding the services to be provided under this
Agreement.
4. CEE’s Obligations
4.1 CEE shall provide services under this Agreement in a professional manner
consistent with the care and skill used by reputable members of CEE’s
profession.
106
4.2 CEE, and all of its employees or agents, shall comply with all statutes,
ordinances, rules, regulations and other laws applicable to the provision of
services under this Agreement.
4.3 CEE shall not engage in discriminatory employment practices against any
employee or applicant for employment and shall in all respects comply with all
federal, state and local laws, regulations and orders, including without
limitation, Chapter 363 of the Minnesota Statutes, as amended from time to
time. Failure to comply with the provisions hereof shall be deemed a material
default under this Agreement.
5. Right to Audit
5.1 CEE shall maintain accurate and detailed records, in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles consistently applied, for all loans originated
under this Agreement. CITY has the right to inspect, examine and makes copies
of any or all books, accounts, records and other writings of CEE relating to the
loans originated under this Agreement. These audit rights shall be extended to
CITY or to any representative designated by CITY. Audits shall take place at
times and locations mutually agreed upon by both parties, although CEE must
make the materials to be audited available within one (1) week of the request for
them. Costs incurred in undertaking the audit will be borne by CITY but costs
incurred by CEE as a result of CITY exercising its right to audit will be borne by
CEE.
6. Term and Termination
6.1 Unless earlier terminated as provided in the following paragraphs, this
Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2001, and continue through
December 31, 2002.
6.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party, for any reason or no reason,
immediately upon written notice to the other party. In the event this Agreement
is terminated by CEE prior to the expiration of the term set forth in paragraph
6.1, CITY shall compensate CEE for all services delivered up to the date of
termination and CEE shall provide CITY with such information as CITY may
request regarding the status of any ongoing project.
6.3 Any termination of this Agreement shall not release either party from their
respective obligations under sections 8 and 9 of this Agreement.
7. Insurance
7.1 During the term of this Agreement, CEE shall obtain and maintain workers’
compensation, comprehensive general liability, and automobile liability
107
insurance. Comprehensive general liability insurance shall have and aggregate
limit of $2,000,000.
7.2 Upon request by the CITY, CEE shall provide CITY with a certificate or
certificates of insurance relating to the insurance required pursuant to paragraph
7.1.
8. Liability and Indemnification
8.1 CEE represents that the services to be provided under this Agreement are
reasonable in scope and that CEE has the experience and ability to provide the
services.
8.2 CEE shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY and its officers, directors,
employees and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses,
injuries and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and damages for death, personal
injury and property damage) which CITY may incur as a result of any act or
omission by CEE in providing services under this Agreement.
8.3 CITY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CEE and its officers, directors,
employees and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses,
injuries and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and damages for death, personal
injury and property damage) which CEE may incur as a result of any act or
omission by CITY in discharging its duties under this Agreement.
9. Confidentiality
Unless otherwise agreed by CITY in writing, CEE shall maintain in confidence and
not disclose to any third party any information obtained regarding CITY and/or any
borrowers for which CEE is providing services; provided, however, that this
obligation to maintain confidentiality shall not apply to:
a) Information in the public domain at the time of disclosure;
b) Information which becomes part of the public domain after disclosure
through no fault of CEE; or
c) Information which CEE can demonstrate was known by it prior to the date
of this Agreement.
10. Relationship of Parties
CEE will provide services as an independent contractor under this Agreement.
Neither CEE, nor any of its employees or agents, shall be considered employees of
CITY for any purpose, and neither shall CEE be eligible for any compensation or
benefits which CITY may provide to its employees from time to time. CEE shall be
108
solely responsible for all employment and other taxes applicable to providing services
hereunder, and CITY will not withhold any taxes or contributions from the
compensation payable to CEE under this Agreement. If any governmental authority
(federal, state or other) claims that CITY owes taxes or contributions which allegedly
should have been withheld or made, then, to the extent permitted by law, CEE shall
pay CITY the amounts claimed to be due, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and any
other costs which CITY may incur in defending such claim, whether or not a lawsuit is
commenced.
11. Notices
All notices, requests, demands and other communications required to be given in
writing under this Agreement shall be given to the other party in person or by mail as
provided in this section. If delivered personally, notice shall be deemed to have been
duly given on the date of delivery. If delivered by mail, such notice shall be sent via
first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the address set forth at the beginning of this
Agreement or such other address as a party may otherwise request by written notice,
and notice shall be deemed duly given three (3) business days after mailing.
12. Assignment
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs, successors and assigns; provided, however, that neither party shall
assign or transfer in any manner, this Agreement or any portion hereof without the
prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to assign or transfer without
prior written consent shall be void and of no effect.
13. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
14. Miscellaneous
14.1 Headings and captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and
shall not affect the meaning of this Agreement.
14.2 This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all
prior agreements, discussions and representations, written or oral, concerning
the subject matter hereof.
14.3 No waiver by CITY of any term or condition of this Agreement or any
document referred to herein shall, whether by conduct or otherwise, be
construed as a waiver or release of any other term or condition of this
Agreement.
109
14.4 This Agreement may only be amended in a written agreement signed by both
parties.
14.5 Except as expressly set forth in Section 8, the rights and benefits under this
Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of CITY and CEE, and this
Agreement shall not be construed to give any rights, benefits or causes of action
to any third party.
14.6 The invalidity or partial invalidity of any provision of this Agreement shall not
invalidate the remaining provisions, and the remainder shall be construed as of
the invalidated portion shall have never been a part of this Agreement.
14.7 This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original and one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: City Manager
CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Sheldon Strom
Executive Director
Federal Tax Identification Number: 41-1647799
NRP/SLP/Blackstone loan orig agree December 12,2000
110
BLACKSTONE EXTERIOR MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM
OR DEFFERED LOAN PROGRAM
Program Overview: This matching grant/deferred loan program will stimulate exterior housing
improvements to homesteaded properties in the single family Blackstone neighborhood. Eligible
residents can select either a matching grant OR a deferred loan, whichever meets their needs
best. Only applicants meeting the guidelines and expressing intent to complete the work during
the years 2001-2 will receive final approval.
Grant/Loan Pool: In 2001-2, $40,000 will be available for matching grants and admin and
$40,000 will be available for deferred loans.
Income Limit: There is no maximum income limit for participants in this program.
Eligible Properties: The program is open to residents of owner occupied properties in the pilot
area. Applicant must be current on mortgage payments and property tax payments.
Grant Amount: The maximum grant will be $2,000. The minimum grant amount will be $500.
Each household may receive one grant OR one loan for the duration of the program.
Grant Match Ratio: The grant funds must be matched on a one-to-one basis with funds from
the owner.
Deferred Loan Amount: The max loan will be $4,000. The minimum loan amount will be
$1,000. A Match Ratio is not required for the deferred loan. Each household may receive one
grant OR one loan for the duration of the program.
Loan Term: Ten years. The borrower must remain in the property for 10 years from date of
closing in order for the loan to be 100% forgiven. If the borrower sells, transfers title, or moves
out of the property prior to the end of the tenth year, the borrower will be responsible for
repaying the full original loan amount.
Interest Rate: 5%.
Eligible Improvement Projects:
The program is limited to financing exterior rehab and repair projects. Eligible Improvements
are:
Painting/siding/stucco (repair/replacement).
Railings, gutters, and downspouts (repair/replacement).
Fences, porches, decks, and retaining walls (new/repair/replacement).
Structural and foundation problems on home and/or garage.
Doors (repair or replace).
Windows / Skylights (repair or replace).
Garages (new garage/repair/addition).
Roof replacement and repair.
Sidewalks, driveways, steps (repair/replacement).
Permanent landscaping, such as shrubs/trees.
111
Ineligible Improvement Projects: The following projects would not be eligible for financing
under this program:
New Home Construction.
Room additions or expansions, however impacted windows, doors, siding and roofing will be
eligible.
Repair or replace sewer or water lines.
Pools, whirlpools or saunas.
Interior decorating, or interior work.
Playground equipment and gazebos.
Refinancing or exterior work initiated prior to the grant/loan award.
Work by Owner: Work can be performed by the owner on a "sweat equity" basis. . Materials
must be purchased, installed, inspected and accounted for by original proofs of payment prior to
disbursement of any grant/loan proceeds, along with appropriate permits. Grant/loan funds will
not be used to compensate for labor or for purchase or rental of tools or equipment. The owner’s
ability to complete the work in a timely manner will be assessed.
Other General Conditions and Procedures
1. Initial application for funds will be submitted to CEE.
There will be widely published beginning and ending dates for submitting applications. If
there are more applications than can be funded; a public lottery will be conducted to identify
the sequence in which applications will be processed. If there are fewer applications than can
be funded, a lottery will not be conducted and additional applications may be submitted
directly to CEE and will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis until all program
funds have been committed.
2. Detailed Applications: After the lottery, an application form must be submitted. This form
will include:
Necessary personal information (i.e name, address, phone numbers).
A description of the proposed work and a cost estimate.
A copy of the applicant's most recent property tax statement.
A signed "Data Privacy Act Statement and Consent Form" (provided by CEE).
A statement from the mortgage company regarding status of mortgage payments.
3. Rehabilitation Counseling: A rehab consultant will be available to program participants to
provide advise on proposed work, assist with the bidding process and help select the
successful bidder(s).
4. Matching Funds: The grant program is a dollar-for-dollar matching grant with a maximum
grant amount of $2,000. The property owner must pay the contractor from his/her funds first,
provide proof of payment, after which the grant funds will be paid directly to the contractor.
The owner is responsible for any costs in excess of the City grant. Deferred loan recipients
will not be required to match program funds.
112
5. Contractors / Permits: Plumbers must be licensed by the City and other contractors by the
State of MN as applicable. Permits must be obtained when required by ordinance.
6. Underwriting Decisions: The applicant for the grant and loan funds must be current on
mortgage payments and real estate taxes for the property. CEE will determine applicant
eligibility for the program based on the criteria stated in these Guidelines. A denial decision
by CEE will be discussed with staff and the Association to assist resident.
7. Costs for Program Administration: Grant/loan origination fees are paid by the City budget
for this program.
8. Custody of Funds: Grant/loan funds will remain in the custody of CEE until payment for
completed work.
9. Work Completion: Weather permitting, all work items must be completed within 120 days
of the grant/loan closing (defined by the date the participation agreement is signed).
10. Disbursement Process:
a) Payment to the contractor (or owner - see "Work by Owner") will be made after
completion of the work. An inspection will be made by CEE when a permit is not
required or by the City Inspector when a permit is required to verify completion of the
work.
b) Final payment for work will also require the property owner to furnish proof of his/her
payment to the work contractor.
c) The following items must be received before funds can be released:
i. Original proposal or final invoice from contractor (or materials list from supplier);
ii. Completion certificates(s) signed by the participant and the contractor
iii. Evidence that the owners’ funds have been paid to the contractor
iv. Copies of all required city permits (also indicating final inspection by City);
v. Final inspection verification by CEE, when required
vi. Lien waiver for entire cost of project
Items # i. – iv. must be provided in order to prepare the check.
11. Program Timeline:
Guidelines accepted October 2000
Market program Feb 2001
Applications March 2001
Lottery (if necessary) April 3, 2001
Target for first job May 2001
113
BLACKSTONE PILOT INITIATIVE
A pilot program tailored to the Single Family Blackstone Neighborhood will begin in 2001. The
program incorporates the 5 components outlined below, which are listed in order of importance
as rated by residents. This pilot program coordinates neighborhood activity with City initiatives
and leverages City and other funds with private investment. The Blackstone Park is outside the
scope of this pilot, however, a status report is provided.
Status of Neighborhood Mini Park
• Residents and Park & Rec. staff have agreed on the park layout and park elements.
• The Park & Rec. Dept. will be meeting with residents to decide on playground equipment
and the possibility of using volunteers to assist with equipment assembly.
• Completion of the park improvements will occur in 2001.
1. Matching Grants Or Deferred Loans for Exterior Improvements. Eligible residents can
select a matching grant OR a deferred loan.
a. Income Limit: There is no income restriction.
b. Eligible Properties: Residents of owner occupied properties in the pilot area are eligible.
Applicants must be current on mortgage payments and property tax payments.
c. Grant Amount: The maximum grant is $2,000, and the minimum grant amount is $500.
Each household may receive one grant OR one loan for the duration of the program. The
grant funds must be matched on a one-to-one basis with funds from the owner.
d. Deferred Loan Amount: The maximum loan amount is $4,000, and the minimum loan
amount is $1,000. A Match Ratio is not required for the deferred loan. Each household
may receive one grant OR one loan for the duration of the program.
e. Eligible Exterior Improvement Guidelines: Guidelines will ensure that dollars are spent
to further the goal of neighborhood improvement. Eligible improvements are:
• Painting/siding/stucco (repair/replacement).
• Railings, gutters, and downspouts (repair/replacement).
• Fences, porches, decks, and retaining walls (new/repair/replacement).
• Structural and foundation problems on home and/or garage.
• Doors (repair or replace).
• Windows / Skylights (repair or replace).
• Garages (new garage/repair/addition).
• Roof replacement and repair.
• Sidewalks, driveways, steps (repair/replacement).
• Permanent landscaping, such as shrubs/trees.
f. Applications. Applications will be mailed to residents in Spring of 2001.
2. “Dumpster Day” - Neighborhood Clean-Up Day.
114
The neighborhood association will organize a neighborhood clean up effort by having “free”
dumpsters available one Saturday in June 2001. (Date to be announced.)
3. Citywide Zoning Modifications Related to Remodeling of Existing Homes.
The City zoning ordinance has been modified to reduce frontyard setbacks to allow for
porches and decks. Revisions are being made to the sideyard setback requirement to make
2nd story additions more feasible. These modifications are designed so variances are
unnecessary. For specifics on how the modifications affect remodeling plans, please call
Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator at 924-2592.
Staff is exploring the concern that the zoning code restricts garages to 25% coverage of the
rear yard, and the impact this code has on additions to single stall garages.
4. Low Cost – High Impact Initiatives. These initiatives are designed to compliment the
exterior improvement components and include:
a. Remodeling Resource Handbook. The association will distribute a handbook listing
remodeling resources ranging from financial resources, to remodeling ideas, advice on
hiring contractors, and landscaping resources, etc.
b. Neighborhood Annual Best Yard Award. This award will be sponsored by the
association to promote improving the general appearance of the neighborhood and will be
coordinated with the City Evergreen Award.
c. Yardscape Plans. Yardscape plans developed by the Design Center will be available and
interns from the Henn. Community College Landscape program are being sought to assist
with individualized plans based on the Design Center’s formats.
d. Discount Volume Purchasing. The neighborhood association & city staff will explore
discount volume purchasing of retaining wall stone, windows, driveway related
improvements and landscaping materials.
5. Residential Street Speed Reduction.
A campaign to reduce speed on residential streets was favored over the use of speed humps.
The “We live here, please slow down” campaign will include installation of three permanent
advisory “Local Traffic Only” signs, coordination with the Police Department’s
Neighborhood Block Watch to gain pledges from residents to drive respectfully on streets,
and posting lawn signs that promote the campaign.
Additional ideas that can be implemented include: exploring the Housing Improvement Area as a
lending mechanism to all income homeowners, conducting a seminar on zoning and inspection
requirements, and conducting an association-sponsored neighborhood Paint-a-Thon.
Four of the lowest rated ideas have not been included in pilot program. They are: increasing
enforcement of zoning and housing codes, establishing a neighborhood design review
committee, providing a planbook of porch designs, and installation of decorative street lighting.
115
Item # 4a
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CITIZENS CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
OCTOBER 19, 2000 --7:00 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL
SECOND FLOOR, NORTH #1 CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, John Herbert, Ken Huiras, and
Robert Jacobson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Browning and Mary Jean Overend
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator, John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator, and Shirley Olson, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Marble, Director of Information Services, ISD #283 and
Charlie Fiss, LAN Technician, ISD #283
1. Call to Order
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. Roll Call
All current members of the Commission except Bruce Browning and
Mary Jean Overend were present.
3. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Rick Dworsky, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to approve the meeting
minutes of July 20, 2000 of the Cable TV Advisory Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
It was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by Rick Dworsky, to approve the meeting
minutes of August 10, 2000 of the Cable TV Advisory Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Adoption of the Agenda
It was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by John Herbert, to adopt the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Old Business
A. School District Funding for 2000
Tom Marble explained that in the past funding could not be directed toward Charlie’s
position because of labor contracts. However the labor contracts have been renegotiated
116
and now allow for a new competitive salary schedule and the ability to use this position
in a more flexible way.
Robert Jacobson stated that the position title may also be part of the problem and
recommended that the term technician not be used.
The Commission considered the School District’s request of raising the allocation of the
grant from $25,000 for operations, which has been the practice for a number of years.
Charlie Fiss stated that the $28,000 equipment grant (from Time Warner) was used to
purchase the following equipment to create 4 identical editing systems: 4 Macintosh G-4
computers, 4 17” monitors, 4 Mini DV cassette recorders and a SAN Cube for digitized
material. He stated that all items were networked, working wonderfully and were being
used to develop quality material. The TV production students have been very excited
about the new editing equipment and the 9 camcorders (purchased with a separate $7,500
equipment grant last year) and have been handling the equipment properly.
Tom Marble said that the TV instructor, Eric Adolfson, is an art teacher who also teaches
still photography, and worked with Charlie over the summer to modernize the
curriculum.
Tom Marble also said that the School District still desired $10,000 to upgrade the
existing studios with a new mixer, master recording deck and teleprompters, and to equip
a second TV studio would cost $25,000, but this could wait. He stated that the School
District was requesting an increased annual allocation to assist the cable channel, either
as an operations grant or split into operations and a specific equipment grant.
John Herbert asked what the maximum dollar amount was available for this grant.
Reg Dunlap said that City had $37,400 remaining in the Contractual Services category
for the funding.
John Herbert asked how contingent the position was on this funding from the City.
Tom Marble stated that it was very contingent on the funding.
John Herbert felt that grants should be granted for equipment, but not for the position
itself. He believed that the School District should also be responsible for the salary of the
position.
Tom Marble stated that he wanted to research additional history of grant guidelines. He
believed that from the beginning the grant was in support of the entire operation, which
would include personnel.
John Herbert was concerned about setting precedence for the future and questioned if it
would be appropriate for the position to be shared, i.e. School District .4 and City .6.
117
Ken Huiras said it was a grant and that there had not been strings attached to it in the
past.
Ken Huiras asked if the graduation standard included a video requirement.
Tom Marble stated that this was the case.
It was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by Dale Hartman to grant $30,000 to the
School District.
John Herbert agreed with the grant, but requested that the School District fine tune the
budget for this position and requested that for accountability reasons, the School District
report back on how the funding for 2001 was used before the City does the their budget
for funding.
Tom Marble stated that he will be overseeing the budget and agrees with being held
accountable.
It was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by Rick Dworsky, to amend the amount to $37,400.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Commission requested that Tom Marble provide a detailed report to the Commission
on how the funds were utilized, and Tom agreed to do so.
The Commission directed staff to contact Sharon Klumpp and others who had knowledge
of the history and objectives of why the grant was originally provided.
The Commission requested a detailed equipment list from Charlie Fiss; Charlie said he
would e-mail the list to Reg Dunlap.
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator stated that the new cable applicant, Everest,
had stated in recent communication an interest to partner with the school district. He
recommended that Tom Marble contact the operator and initiate dialog about what this
would involve and any possible rearrangements that would benefit the public.
B. Non Public Schools Funding
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator presented an update. He stated that Torah
Academy has been loaned equipment to produce internal material some of which will
also run on the Community channel. He stated that there was a teacher there who was
interested in having the 8th grade work on a school year retrospective project. He also
explained that a similar arrangement last year had produced results, because Benilde-St.
Margaret’s High School has purchased their own equipment, and produced programming
that has shown on Community TV15.
118
John encouraged Commissioners to brainstorm and forward ideas about additional ways
to involve non-public schools so they can receive the benefits of Cable TV in the City.
He noted that the Commission would consider non public schools funding in the 2001
budget and work plan.
C. Needs Assessment Update
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator explained he had not received all the
information needed to make a presentation.
D. Update on Competitive Cable Franchising Process
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator provided a handout to the Commission and
presented an update on the competitive cable franchising process. He stated that the City
has asked that the companies to build an institutional network which would benefit the
City by connecting a dozen City and School buildings and in some places replace voice
telephone lines (which would save the City money). He stated that a Public Hearing was
scheduled for the City Council meeting on November 6, 2000. He stated that Everest,
Wide Open West and any others would be present at the meeting. He explained that the
next step was to complete an analysis of the proposals from the companies and then
complete a summary of the negotiations before the public hearing.
6. New Business
A. Rick Dworsky comments on NATOA conference
Rick Dworsky thanked the Commission for their support and for sending him to the
recent conference in Los Angeles. He informed the Commission that the next
NATOA conference would be September 9-12, 2001 in South Beach, Miami.
Mr. Dworsky presented highlights of the material presented at the conference. In a
session on competitive cable franchising, he heard these main points of interest:
• Usually cities should start from scratch on the franchise
• Cities may need to add staff to handle the needs of customers
• Competitors don’t necessarily lower rates but may instead offer improved
customer service
• Cities should have a strategy to assure the entire City isn’t torn up for construction
at once
• Cable companies would like regulation at the state instead of municipal level.
State Law requires parity between incumbent and competitor
He also had other points about the state of the industry or regulation:
• Many of the new SA 2000 and 6000 boxes have an Ethernet port, function at a
486 level and are pingable because they have a URL
• Cable in the Classroom is offered by Cox and free to schools without
commercials
• DSL presently at a 500,000 heading toward 7 million.
119
• AT&T, Time Warner are the biggest cable providers and Direct TV and EchoStar
are the biggest satellite providers
• Cable carriers prefer cable regulation even with a required 5% franchise fee,
rather than telecommunications regulation
• If cable drops can be free – why not telephone
• Make Public, Educational and Government (PEG) channels a certain percentage
of available channels so it is a constantly moving (and increasing) number
• PEG channels should have the funding to transition to digital
B. MACTA Lobbying Special Contribution
Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator described last year’s lobbying effort by the Minnesota
Association of Community Telecommunications Advisors (MACTA) to prevent passage
of the bills introduced by Senator Steve Kelly and the Ventura Administration, and that
the City contributed $5,000 to that lobbying effort. MACTA’s proposal for the next
session is to raise $120,000 and introduce legislation prepared by Creighton, Bradley and
Guzzetta, and for Spano & Janecek to continue as the primary lobbyists. MACTA
requests $.50 per subscriber, and as of September 30, 2000, Time Warner had 12,916
subscribers for a cost of $6,458.
It was moved by Rick Dworsky, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to contribute $6,500 to
MACTA’s lobbying effort. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Reports - None
8. Communications from Chair - None
9. Communications from City Staff
Ken Huiras asked about the Time Warner complaint about unburied cables and open
cabinets at Victoria Ponds and Wolfe Lake Condominiums. The Commission
directed Reg Dunlap to work with Scott Schroeder to resolve the problems as
soon as possible, and to write a letter to Scott’s supervisor if need be.
10. Adjournment
With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Rick Dworsky
to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
120
Item # 4b
December 8, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
5 AND 10 SMALL TOOLS 26.64
A I C P A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 155.00
ABLE COURIER DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.70
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 955.25
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 702.70
ANNE TESSIEN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 40.50
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 329.51
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 748.43
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 605.67
BARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 194.95
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BENSON, MAXENE L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25.00
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 27.51
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BILL MYERS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BIRNO, RICK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 65.32
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 91.48
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BURTON EQUIPMENT INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 191.24
BYSTEDT, CHRISTI INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CAMILON, MANNY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 488.61
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.68
CENTRAL SALT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,231.40
CITY OF RICHFIELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.50
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.84
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 72.00
COMMUNITY ACTION FOR
SUBURBAN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,435.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,269.12
DOUG HAUGEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 121.18
ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,416.08
ELAN MEETING EXPENSE 954.25
ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE
IN
OFFICE SUPPLIES 86.81
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
8,799.05
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.05
EXECUTIVE ENTERPRISES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,674.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 129.08
FLUGAUR, FLORENCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.38
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
244.49
GALYANS GENERAL SUPPLIES 303.47
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 438.59
121
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 190.50
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GILBERT MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,908.95
GIWOYNA, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 39.09
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.47
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 660.82
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 483.90
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN
IN
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
23.60
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.33
HEIGHTS-NORTHEAST WELDING
INC.
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,822.82
HIRSHFIELDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 922.67
HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 120.54
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 207.45
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,473.27
IIMC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 80.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 98.38
INDELCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,461.18
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
PRODUCT
OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 361.61
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,117.65
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 916.82
KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 19,598.25
KENNEDY & GRAVEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 126.00
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 388.82
LAIDLAW ELECTRIC INC. HEATING 28.00
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 49.00
LANE MOORE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 67.11
LUIS MIGUEL OCAMPO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00
M. LEE SMITH SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 228.50
MARGE VICKERMAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 230.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,005.38
MAUMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
MAYNARD, MARY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.00
MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 11.56
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 685.60
MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 39.26
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 61.50
METRO WATER CONDITIONING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.96
MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 501.37
MINN CHIEFS POLICE ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 180.00
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,074.51
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 9,376.38
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 104.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN STATE BOARD OF
ACCOUNTANCY
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 9,738.46
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 152.08
122
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 869.74
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 109.44
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,058.69
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 605.22
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PALM'S HOME BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 15.30
PANASONIC SERVICES COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 170.81
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.27
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 497.21
PHYLLIS MRACHEK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,741.36
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.26
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 156.81
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 767.69
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 1,184.04
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98
RMGT GENERAL SUPPLIES 110.76
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT
CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES 271.43
SA-AG INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 282.62
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 2,320.00
SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 230.00
SIGNATURE CONCEPTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 524.45
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SNAP-ON TOOLS GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.15
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 114.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 449.20
ST. LOUIS PARK CARDINALS FACILITY RENTALS - taxable 100.00
STANDARD PLUMBING PLUMBING 29.00
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.22
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.08
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 174.55
SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 156.78
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 1,685.62
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 91.00
TI-ZACK CONCRETE INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 6,238.51
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 10,402.50
TREASURE ISLAND FALSE ALARM FEE 26.50
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 168.98
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 39.50
ULTIMATE OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 668.75
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS
AREA
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 108.55
VICKERMAN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.00
VIEAU, DURELL MEETING EXPENSE 111.86
VOGT HEATING & A/C HEATING 40.00
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 169.34
WARNING LIGHTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,604.44
123
WASTE NEWS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,694.11
WHEELER HARDWARE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,115.13
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 31.95
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,050.85
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 101.35
ZIPSORT PRINTING & PUBLISHING 63.44
146,861.56
December 15, 2000
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABE A. ROCKLIN LIQUOR, INTOXICATING 200.00
ACT ELECTRONICS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 191.88
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 194.90
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,068.09
ALL STAR SPORTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.00
ANTHONY J. STEBLAY SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 301.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 531.65
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,559.95
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 106.50
BARON, EILEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 182.53
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS (35.87)
BEARCOM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 475.25
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.29)
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.96
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BUNKER PARK STABLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 426.00
BURMASTER, THERESA SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 331.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,477.37
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 827.14
CARLSON, SCOTT SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 69.00
CENTRAL SALT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 8,585.20
CITY OF HOPKINS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,350.00
COMMUNICATION BRIEFINGS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 89.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV
CO
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
COURSE ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 300.00
CREIGHTON, BRADLEY &
GUZZETTA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,594.50
CRILEY, KATHI L MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 131.48
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 401.72
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,200.00
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,494.00
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 632.04
DALE V. SOPKOWIAK HEATING 46.20
DALSIN & SON INC, JOHN A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,534.00
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00
DAVID AND JAN TREMAINE SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 63.00
124
DIRECT SAFETY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.34
DOROTHEA MOGA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 267.00
DVORAK, BRAD SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 120.00
ELAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 340.00
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,171.80
EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 2,795.63
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
14,502.12
EMPLOYER EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 260.00
EMPLOYMENT PUBLISHING OTHER ADVERTISING 592.80
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.55
F.F. JEDLICKI INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 24,400.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 771.56
FERN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00
FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00
FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 253.91
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,910.20
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GIEBEL, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.66
GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
GROUP
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
1,997.53
HENNEPIN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 3,862.50
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 294.01
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
11,986.24
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 863.36
HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 96.62
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY LEGAL SERVICES 874.02
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 809.10
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,625.00
IACP HOUSING BUREAU SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 264.26
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 617.59
JEANE THORNE INC. SALARIES - TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES
504.30
JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 202.31
JOHNSTON-MADISON, CLAUDIA M OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53.25
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 205.36
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.44
KELLY S. GARVEY SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 63.00
KEVIN AND DULCEY HELLERS SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 63.00
KNOX LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES 155.75
LAKELAND ENGINEERING
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT PARTS 114.33
LARSON'S SALES, BUD GENERAL SUPPLIES 119.28
LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00
M A U M A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 323.17
MARGARET MAY PETERSON SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 63.00
125
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 338.63
METRO FIRE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,049.88
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 620.48
METROCALL TELEPHONE 804.88
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 50,094.00
MICRO CENTER OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 598.52
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 276.39
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 129.00
MINNEAPOLIS DEPT. OF HEALTH
AN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 319.60
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR
LICENSES/TAXES 15.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS GENERAL SUPPLIES 406.89
MINVALCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 236.23
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 275.00
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 236.63
NELSON-RUDIE ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 466.74
NENA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00
NIEL WILLARDSON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
NORTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK
FORC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,500.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 34,592.57
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 136.43
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING
IN
EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 291.00
PALM'S HOME BAKERY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21.60
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40.00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 154.86
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.00
PRO CONSULTING SERVICES INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 529.73
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING
ENGINEE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,455.76
RECYCOOL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
37.50
ROTO-ROOTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 405.00
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT
CO
EQUIPMENT PARTS 153.83
SARA AND MIKE KOBES SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 301.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 556.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 537.00
STATE TREASURER STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 5,717.81
STEPHEN J. JOHNSON SPEC ASSMTS COLLECTED BY CITY 63.00
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 145.64
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 99.51
TEKSYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 1,456.00
TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT
PRODUCTION
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00
126
TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 295.22
TYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 37.59
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,509.19
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 842.92
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS
AREA
MEETING EXPENSE 80.00
VEIT & COMPANY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 500.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 42.79
WARNING LITES OF MN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 228.76
WASTE MANAGEMENT GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 58.95
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 977.23
WIRED SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 12.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 270.00
ZACKS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 63.90
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,033.38
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (31.87)
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 57.91
233,808.17
127
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
December 18, 2000
5. Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the amount of $145,000 to
repay MSA approved construction costs.
Background:
During 1995, 1996, and 1997 the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized
receipt of bids for the reconstruction of Cedar Lake Road Phase I, II, and III from Trunk
Highway 169 to Quentin Avenue. That construction completed the reconstruction of Cedar Lake
Road from Trunk Highway 169 to Quentin Avenue/Hwy. 100 east ramp. This project is one of
the larger projects to be constructed in St. Louis Park at a cost of nearly 5.5 million dollars. A
significant portion of the project costs was funded through expenditure of the City’s MSA funds.
Prior to 1995, the City did not expend all its MSA funds in order to generate a fund balance in
anticipation of the 1995-1997 Cedar Lake Road projects. However, due to the size of the Cedar
Lake Road project, the fund balance was not able to finance the entire project. This was
anticipated at the inception of the project.
Considerations:
A Mn/DOT funding mechanism became available in 1996, which allows the City to advance
funds from future allocations to its MSA account at no interest. This advance may be done on an
annual basis to a maximum amount of one years total MSA allocation. The City currently
receives about $1,350,000 in MSA funds annually. Out of the money allocated, about $480,000
is used to fund maintenance activities on the City’s MSA system, leaving approximately
$870,000 available for construction. Advancing funds is possible through the year 2001 at which
time the account balance will become positive. Assuming no changes in this, the City will have
about $730,000 of MSA funds available for additional projects in 2002 with about $870,000
available annually thereafter.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution requesting Mn/DOT advance
funds in the amount of $145,000 from its 2001 allocation to fund past MSA construction costs in
the City.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
128
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADVANCEMENT OF
MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS
FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has designed and constructed approved
Municipal State Aid Street Projects in 1995 through 1997 which will require State Aid Funds in
excess of those available in its State Aid Construction Account; and
WHEREAS, said City previously planned to proceed with the construction of said
project(s) through the use of advance encumbrances from the general State Aid Construction
Account to supplement the available funds in its State Aid Construction Account; and
WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subdivision 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission of Transportation be
and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid
Street Projects of the City of St. Louis Park in an amount of $145,000 in accordance with
Minnesota Rules 8820.1500, Subparagraph 9, and to authorize repayments from the following
year’s accruals to the Construction Account of the Municipal State Aid Street fund for said City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
129
CONSENT ITEM # 6
St. Louis Park City Council
December 18, 2000
6. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment
of a fire sprinkler system at 5727 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the
property owner.
Background:
Leonard Ribnick, owner of the commercial building at 5727 West 36th Street has requested that
the City authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the
building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
Analysis:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing
buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire
suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public
health, safety and welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system in this building because of
a change in occupancy classification. Luggage World is in the process of remodeling the
building and will be moving their offices in once construction is completed. The building
currently has a partial and non-functioning sprinkling system. The property owner will be hiring
a contractor to extend the system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the
current code. Based on the proposed work the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned to the City to authorize the installation of the fire
sprinkler system and specially assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been
submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been
determined to be $33,656.00. An Administrative Fee of $150.00 will be added to the special
assessment.
Staff has determined the adequate funds are available through the Special Assessment
Construction Fund.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: John Lindstrom, Fire Marshall
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
130
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT 5727 West 36th Street
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at 5727 West 36th Street (“Benefited Property”)
(has) have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the
installation of a fire sprinkler system in their retail building on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) (has) have agreed to waive their right to a public
hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner(s) requesting the approval and special
assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire
sprinkler system is accepted at $33,656.00.
4. The Property Owner(s) (has) have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing,
notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through special assessment over a ten (10) year period at seven percent (7%)
interest.
6. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any
other documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and the
special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk