HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/04/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
6:45 p.m. – Board and Commission Interviews
7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 5, 1999
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of March 15, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
5. Approval of agenda
a. Consent agenda
Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
b. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
*c. Resolutions and Ordinances
Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
6. Public Hearing
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
2
8a. First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the “R-C” District and Add a
Definition of “Live-Work Units” to the Zoning Code.
Case No. 99-4-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve First Reading
of an ordinance to amend the “R-C” Multiple Family Residential
District and to adopt a definition for live-work units and set
Second Reading for April 19, 1999.
8b. Resolution Providing For The Sale Of Up To $2,500,000 In General Obligation
Improvement Bonds.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution.
8c. Resolution Authorizing Transfers from the Matured Special Assessment and
Permanent Improvement Revolving Funds to cover past capital projects costs
The resolution authorizes the transfers of money from both the Matured Special
Assessment Fund and the PIR Fund to cover the costs for old improvement project
costs for which the City cannot or chooses not to bond for..
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the transfers as of
December 31, 1998
8d. Purchase of Property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South by the City from the
Housing Authority.
This report considers the purchase of the vacant lot at 2916 Maryland Avenue
South by the City from the Housing Authority for development of a storm water
pond.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the purchase
of the property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South from the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park.
8e. Resolution accepting resignation and declaring vacancy in the office of mayor
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of
Mayor effective April 6, 1999
3
8f. Appointment to fill the vacancy in the office of Mayor effective April 6, 1999
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution making an appointment
to the office of Mayor to fill vacancy.
8g* Traffic Study No. 541: Fire Lane Designation in Victoria Ponds Development.
This report considers the designation of fire lanes in the Victoria Ponds
Development in accordance with the attached plan.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
installation of “No Parking Fire Lane” signs in accordance with
the attached plan.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*b. Planning/Park and Rec Commission Minutes of February 3, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*c. Vendor Claim Report
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s)
11. New Business
11a. First Meeting of the City Board of Equalization
The City is required by state statute to conduct a City Board of Equalization
meeting to hear real estate valuation appeals.
4
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Board of Equalization conduct
its initial meeting on Monday, April 19, 1999 at 7:15 p.m.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments
Finals:
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $ 6,122.02
Concrete Sidewalk & Street Lighting
Contract No. 47-98
Action: By Consent Approve and Authorize Payment
Partial:
Hardrives, Inc. $ 157,804.17
Construction Phase 2 Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Ave to France Ave
Contract No. 14-98
Action: By consent approve and authorize payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
5
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 15, 1999
1. Call to Order
Mayor Dorfman called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
2. Presentations - None
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger,
Jim Brimeyer, and Mayor Gail Dorfman.
Ron Latz arrived at 7:52 p.m.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Andrea); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Planning
Associate (Ms. Peterson); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Superintendent
of Engineering (Mr. Moore); and Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman).
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of March 1, 1999
With a minor correction, the minutes were approved as presented.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 5-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the
agenda. The motion passed 5-0
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
6
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to consider Major Amendment to a Continued Special Permit
for two story bank/dental building with bank drive-through in the C-2
Commercial District
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Coordinator briefly explained the proposed process to
present background information on the project.
Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate provided an overview of the project and summarized the staff
report and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Charleen Zimmer, SRF Consulting provided information regarding the traffic analysis work that
had been done on the project.
Lyn Wik, 3965 Quentin Avenue South, was concerned about the quality of life and the livability
issue of a bank of this size with the drive-through that will generate increased traffic close to a
residential neighborhood. She questioned a proposal for the future realignment of Quentin
Avenue and believed bank customers will circulate through the immediate neighborhood to avoid
exit on Excelsior Boulevard. She didn’t believe that the traffic study accurately reflected the
impact on the neighborhood and questioned the projections that are only outlined until the year
2000.
Mr. Harmening stated that the realignment of Quentin Avenue has been discussed as part of the
community design workshop relative to the City’s Park Commons project, but has not yet been
recommended to the City Council or determined to proceed and would be subject to its own set
of traffic analysis which has not been completed. He indicated that the bank project can proceed
with or without the realignment of Quentin Avenue, and if it was determined that this
realignment was feasible, the neighborhood would be included in the City Council deliberation.
Councilmember Nelson asked what would happen from a traffic perspective if Quentin Avenue
was realigned.
Charleen Zimmer stated in the percentage of trips that were assigned to make the move using
Quentin and 40th Street were liberal to the assignment to those streets because there would be
some additional limits if Quentin is realignment. She explained four traffic flow alternatives for
the drive-through traffic and explained the use of a worst case scenario to allow for the margin of
error that comes from growth of customers that can’t be predicted.
Mr. Harmening stated that as the realignment of Quentin was considered, the Norwest bank
proposal would be examined to assess any additional impacts on Quentin and 40th Street
associated with that.
7
Brett Boushele, 4956 40th Street West, was concerned about the accuracy of the traffic study and
believed that many factors seem to preclude common sense that there is actually going to be
more traffic in the area that is being represented. He raised a concern for the residential
properties that are located directly across from the only entrance to the project on Vallacher and
Quentin and the potential for traffic to use alternative routes through the immediate
neighborhood.
James Robertson, 5100 West 40th Street, was concerned about the traffic study. He believed that
the study contained statistical flaws related to the regression toward the mean and a logical flaw
that the assumption that a certain percentage of cars are going to be able to go west bound on
Excelsior Boulevard by coming out and catching the left turn lane and making a U-turn on
Excelsior Boulevard. He raised the issue of 40th Street becoming a one-way, parking on both
sides of 40th Street is a traffic problem, increased traffic related to safety Elementary schools and
current traffic restrictions. He also raised a concern about potential piece meal planning of
Excelsior Boulevard. He believed rushing to accommodate bank was opposite to complete an
thoroughly integrated plan for the Town Center development. He was opposed to the proposal at
this time.
Lon LeClair, 5013 West 40th Street, was concerned about the impact of increased traffic on the
neighborhood. He didn’t believe bank traffic was going to decrease as suggested in traffic report,
but rather increase traffic. He stated he was not against the development, but the increased traffic
that comes from a development.
Mr. LeClair asked why Quentin would be moved?
Mr. Harmening stated that the realignment of Quentin came up as part of the Town Center Park
Commons community design workshop in fall of 1996 and was related to some additional
infrastructure improvement proposed to make north of Excelsior Boulevard.
Mr. LeClair asked the realignment would bring more traffic?
Mr. Harmening stated that it could and that was one of the reasons that no decision has been
made since that it is an extremely important issue to the neighborhood and is something that
would have to be discussed with property owners South and North of Excelsior Boulevard to
determine the merits of realignment, but there has been no decision to realign or not realign
Quentin.
Mr. LeClair asked if there would be additional pedestrian traffic trying to access across Excelsior
Boulevard to the north.
Mr. Harmening indicated that this would be desired and improvements will continue to be made
to Excelsior Boulevard which consists of reconfiguration of some of the intersections and
addition of more signalization to make it easier for pedestrians to cross.
Mr. LeClair asked why the entrance and exit could not be located on Excelsior Boulevard.
8
Ms. Peterson stated that the actual dimensions of the site could not accommodate an entrance and
exit from Excelsior Boulevard and alternative proposals were considered after receiving the
results of traffic study to elevate traffic impact on neighborhood.
Charleen Zimmer, SRF explained the alternative proposals that were considered. She explained
how the study quantified the worst case scenario, the standard way traffic studies were done on
sites by using a comparison to existing traffic during 48 hour traffic counts as well as peak hour
intersection turning movement counts and that 777 was the number of trips in and out on a daily
basis that this site would generate if the existing building were used as a medical office building.
Mr. LeClair believed a 25% increase was high on West 40th Street and that traffic was not going
to get better. He noted that the Planning Commission rejected this.
Mr. Harmening stated that although the Planning Commission didn’t have all the traffic study
information, traffic concerns were the primary issue associated with their action on this matter.
Matt Farley, 5104 West 40th Street, believed a 25% traffic increase was significant and believed
there was a lot more work to be done to evaluate the development of this property and impact of
increased traffic and stated that a Councilmember told Charleen Zimmer not to use figure in her
presentation.
Mary Ann Brower, 4824 Vallacher Avenue, was concerned about impact of increased traffic on
the neighborhood. She was concerned that the entrance/exit behind MRI building off a Vallacher
was a blind intersection and unsafe for pedestrians, overflow of stacking for drive-through could
block entrance, residents using alternative routes to avoid stoplight farm.
Dr. Burton Diamond, 2725 Kipling, stated he was intrigued that there was no talk about the
benefits of the development. He believed this bank location would benefit St. Louis Park
residents, and what is best for traffic should not be the only factor considered, but perhaps the
impact of losing a big bank.
Mayor Dorfman indicated that issues that related to impact on neighborhood were difficult.
Tom Crouse, 4008 Quentin Avenue, was concerned about the traffic pattern and believed the
realignment of Quentin needs to be decided before the approval of a development. He
questioned what would happen to condition of CUP of buffer between the drive-through and a
residential area if Quentin was realigned and the need for further projections.
Rachal Stanley, 4904 Vallacher Avenue, questioned the cueing, stacking and holding of cars
using drive-through.
Ms. Peterson explained that the site was required to accommodate and has been shown to
accommodate at least 36 cars waiting to be serviced at any given time with 6 drive-through lanes
9
with 120 feet required and indicated that there was no assumption that cars would stack in
entrance.
Councilmember Latz asked how many vehicles currently stack at the existing Norwest Bank site
at peak hours and what was projected at new location.
Charleen Zimmer stated she would need to make some quick analysis to determine this amount.
Richard Wick, Frauenshuh Company, stated that the number of increased lanes does not increase
the number of drive-through traffic, but provides a greater curing area.
Bob Seager, Norwest Chief Architect, explained that the required set back requirement of 120
feet allows for adequate stacking and does not want to see stacking back into Quentin Avenue.
Amy Bezick, 5120 W. 40th Street, questioned the accuracy of the traffic projections at peak
hours and area restaurants.
Barb Bousehele, 4956 W. 40th Street, was concerned about the impact of increased traffic on the
quality of the neighborhood.
Marian Bremer, who worked at Citizen’s Bank, asked if the future closings of some Norwest
Bank sites were this taken into account in evaluating traffic increases.
Charleen Zimmer stated that projections should reflect that change.
Councilmember Nelson asked if Ms. Bremer believed that the projections were a realistic
expectation.
Ms. Bremer indicated the projections were reasonable.
Sean Stanley, 4904 Vallacher Avenue, believed the bank development would be beneficial but
was concerned about the safety of accessing the bank.
Mayor Dorfman closed the Public Hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Council only had discretion over whether there is not drive-
through banking or whether or not to grant this at all with request for a dental and any bank.
Andrea, City Attorney stated that the Council was limited to their discretion with respect to the
dental office and any bank as it is an amendment to the special use permit currently existing in
the site.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Council could turn it all down in theory.
10
Andrea, City Attorney, stated that if the Council finds that it does not meet the requirements
specified in granting a special use permit in this district the Council could turn it all down.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be a difference in amount of traffic that would occur
with out any drive-through verses with drive-through lanes.
Bob Seager, Architect, stated that a bank without drive-through would not be viable.
Richard Wick, Frauenshuh, stated that is was unusual for the traffic study to be in favor of bank
and clarified that they want to be a community partner, meet and exceed the City’s
Comprehensive Plan for urban renewal efforts and believes it will better serve the citizens of St.
Louis Park at this location.
Councilmember Jacobs asked about the timing of this project were
Mr. Harmening stated that the City was bound by state law to act upon development proposal at
this meeting, unless the developer allowed for an extension.
Ms. Peterson clarified that the special permit amendment required a public hearing.
Charleen Zimmer clarified that the 777 trips were the number of trips that were generated if the
existing building were used as an office and the proposed combination with use of trips generated
by the exiting bank would generate 890. The combination of proposed development with ITE
rates were 1628 trips as a worst case scenario.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the criteria were for the granting or the withholding of the
amendments to the special permit in general not just for the drive-through and asked how much
discretion in general does the Council have in general to approve the special permit.
Andrea, City Attorney stated that the Council’s discretion is much more limited than if you were
making a legislative decision such as a rezoning ordinance. The Council is limited to a specific
application for a special use that is permitted with conditions. The Council is limited to looking
at it under the conditions set forth in the ordinance. The Council’s discretion is quasi-judicial
discretion much more subject by a district court based on whether or not you applying the
conditions set forth in your ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Council felt that the conditions that the City Attorney has
outlined for granting or denying the drive-through lanes were met, does the Council have to
approve the request.
Andrea, City Attorney, stated that was correct.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated that while the traffic increases may be detrimental to some
neighbors they are pretty small and meet conditions required.
11
Councilmember Latz asked what the average stacking number of cars would be anticipated
during peak hours.
Ms. Zimmer did a quick analysis and indicated that if you assumed all of the 150 peak hour trips
came in a 15 minute period, and assume each transaction takes 5 minutes that would equate to 8
vehicles per lane or if you assumed all of the 150 peak hour trips came in 15 minutes period and
assume each transaction takes 2 minutes that would equal 3 vehicle per lane and that the valid
conclusion would be that there would be adequate stacking space.
Councilmember Latz asked if the bank gave business increase at this site.
Mr. Seager, Architect stated that the dimension of site looks at maximizing space.
Councilmember Latz reviewed results of Task Force Recommendation. He stated that the
Planning Commission was not presented with existing traffic counts at the existing Norwest
facility, information on typical or normal ranges of traffic for these types of streets, or
information on feasibility of various site alternatives.
Councilmember Latz recommended the construction of more sidewalks in the neighborhood to
be more pedestrian friendly.
Council examined the conditions under their discretion to look at and to determine if they were
met by this proposal.
Councilmember Nelson recommended that the Public Works Department and the County
Engineers look at the timing of the light on Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin related to turning
movements to the left going north and south, consider additional sidewalks, and examine
realignment of Quentin. He did suggest that the traffic counts be presented in a different way
because when you present worst case numbers, people cling on to the worst case scenario. He
doesn’t want to minimize traffic concerns, but a 20% increase of traffic is not a reasonable
representation of what is actually going on at the site and to suggest that the numbers are going to
double is not realistic. He indicated that any traffic is a bad thing and to suggest that no increase
in traffic is the goal is not realistic and stated he can’t support that particularly when there are
5500 people who use this bank and we just can’t shut it down and move out of town. He was
concerned that the Council had limited authority to deny a special use permit and the level of
service is not being decreased at these intersections, the Council does not have the grounds to
deny the special use permit.
Mayor Dorfman stated that there was no question that this development will increase traffic and
there is no question that runs contrary to Council’s desire to become more pedestrian friendly and
suggested looking at what changes can be made to work with the neighborhood to make sure that
some of the safety issues that have been raised are addressed. She indicated that conditions of
Item D on traffic were met and SRF traffic study was thorough and factored everything, therefore
Council had no legal choice but to grant the request.
12
Councilmember Sanger felt that she had no legal choice but to vote in favor of this request. She
stated that if the worst case scenario came to fruition, what alternatives for the neighborhood
would be available to request a review of the measures taken to try to control the traffic impact in
their neighborhood.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that if it was the direction of the Council, the Public Works
department could do some traffic counts and monitoring.
Councilmember Sanger and Councilmember Latz believed this would be desirable.
Mayor Dorfman recommended adding a condition 6 for construction of a sidewalk on the West
side of Quentin.
Resident (Didn’t come to mike, no blue card) - Questioned that the vision for Park Commons
was to decrease the number of drive-throughs.
Mr. Harmening suggested that the standards in the C-2 zoning districts are fairly up-to-date.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a
resolution approving the amended Special Permit subject to conditions recommended by staff.
The motion passed 6-0.
6b. Public Hearing to consider Liquor License Transfer for Bennigan’s located
at 6475 Wayzata Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Mayor Dorfman closed the Public Hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date. No action was required.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
7a. Variance appeal at 2135 Glenhurst Avenue South
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections presented a staff report and Scott Moore, Zoning
Administrator clarified the set back requirements of a “R-1” Single Family District. Staff
recommended to deny the variance request.
Susan Gross, 2151 Glenhurst Road, looked at her house on the aerial photo.
Michael Sward, applicant, stated that he was comfortable with the fact that he can legally split
the lot without the request for a variance, but wanted to do what is the best for the neighborhood.
He stated that staff had introduced this alternative and believed the proposed lot split which
requires a variance does allows for a cleaner and neater split of the lot in question and two new
lots would have more defined boundaries and better legal descriptions. He didn’t believe that
BOZA was not given all the information at their meeting when they denied this request and he
has received support from neighbors on this project.
13
Steve Pratt, 4001 Highwood Road, was opposed to the variance request. He felt that Mr. Sward
as a real-estate agent has failed to meet his a judiciary responsibility to best represent his client
and to know all the uses of the property.
Michael DiWilliams, 2126 Glenhurst Road, believed that the variance request should be denied
because the criteria for granting a variance has not been met and does not have the neighborhood
input for support because it will not increase his investment in the neighborhood.
Damon Bay, 2145 Glenhurst Road, was opposed to the variance request.
Gayle Crose, 4000 Highwood Road, provided photos of the property. She was opposed to the
variance request and concerned about the significant negative impact on the neighborhood and
compatibility.
Ed Sternberg, 2105 Glenhurst Road, was opposed to the variance request and the idea of
subleasing and renting in his neighborhood. He believed it was fine to develop property, but do
it by the guidelines that others in the neighborhood have purchased and maintained their
property.
Susan Gross, 2151 Glenhurst Road, was opposed to the variance request. She stated that there
was a real spirit in the neighborhood to preserve the special quality of the neighborhood.
Robert Coursan, 2139 Glenhurst Road, was opposed to the variance request. He believed a new
house would be an intrusion to his property and negatively affect the Lake Forest neighborhood.
Councilmember Sanger was opposed to granting the appeal of the variance and stated that the
Council can’t just overturn a decision made by BOZA based on an individuals feeling about the
applicant about the variance, but based strictly on the criteria as to the conditions for establishing
the variance have or have not been satisfied. She believed the variance should be denied because
reasonable use can be made of this property without the variance. She stated that if the variance
was granted the Council would violate the City’s standards and open it up for additional variance
requests for personal or aesthetic preference.
Michael Sward, the applicant recommended that there be more communication between staff and
Council.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed it was inappropriate to put a house like this on the site and
was opposed to granting the appeal of the variance.
Councilmember Nelson was opposed to granting the appeal of the variance.
Councilmember Jacobs believed the criteria has not been met and was opposed to granting the
appeal of the variance.
14
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to uphold the
Board of Zoning Appeals decision to deny the variance request. The motion passed 6-0.
15
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Second Reading of Ordinance to Change Zoning from “C-2” Commercial to
“R-C” Multiple Family Residential Southwest quadrant of Louisiana Ave.
and Walker St.
Case No. 99-2-Z
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve Second
Reading of an ordinance to rezone the southwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker
Street from “C-2” Commercial to “R-C” Multiple Family Residential, adopt ordinance, approve
summary, and authorize publication. The motion passed 5-0.
8b. Resolution establishing an escrow account for fire structures severely
damaged by fire and/or explosion
Mr. Hoffman, Director of Inspection presented a staff report and recommended that the City
Council not adopt the fire escrow ordinance.
Councilmember Nelson didn’t believe there was a hardship for the homeowner or the business
owner. He agreed that there was a great deal of the regulations in the City Ordinance Code that
were unnecessary and duplicative and could be get rid of, but just because something is a tool
that is not used, doesn’t mean it will never be used.
Councilmember Sanger asked if historically there had been a problem where a building had not
been rebuilt and this type of ordinance would be helpful and indicated that there would only be
an administrative burden only when there is a distressed property.
Mr. Hoffman explained there were not enough current properties with fire damage significant
enough to trigger this statute.
Councilmember Jacobs didn’t believe it was necessary and was opposed to the resolution.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a
resolution establishing an escrow account for structures severely damaged by fire and/’or
explosion. The motion failed 1-5. Councilmember Nelson was in favor. Councilmembers
Jacobs, Sanger, Dorfman, Latz and Brimeyer opposed.
8c. City Engineer’s Report: Entrance/identity signs at Trunk Highway 7 and
Blake Road and at Louisiana Avenue and the South Frontage Road of I-394-
Project No. 98-15.
Carlton Moore, Public Works presented a staff report.
16
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt the
attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 98-15, ordering Project No. 98-
15, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids. The motion passed 5-0.
8d. City Engineer’s Report: Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVP) at W. 36th
Street and Texas Avenue and W. 36th Street at Belt Line Boulevard
Project No. 98-05
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt the
attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 98-05, ordering Project No. 98-
05, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
Councilmember Sanger recommended a friendly amendment to make the following addition to
Item 3 of resolution. Project No. 98-05 is hereby ordered contingent upon the issuance on
general obligation bonds to fund this associated construction.
Council discussed the amendment to the motion. The City Manager clarified that there would be
a window of time for which the City will be authorizing bonds ongoing capital projects of this
type and that the window will include time in the past and future. He indicated that a policy has
not been finalized with Council that says that this kind of mechanism will be used.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it was the intent to do this project even if no bonds are issued.
Mr. Meyer stated that if the Council turns down a bond authorization, it would be staff’s
recommendation to do the project and seek other sources of funding to this, but future projects
wouldn’t be done if there was no authorization to do bonding.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated he could not accept friendly amendment because he didn’t want
to hold up project, but he did agree that the bond issue needs to be considered as soon as possible
so projects can be funded for cash flow purposes. He noted that because this hasn’t been done,
several funds that are hurting which is not fiscally responsible. He wanted it noted that if the
project are approved, it is clearly understood that the Council has made a public statement that
there is a need to look at issuing bonds to fund these projects.
Councilmember Sanger asked if she could have the assurance that in the worst case if the bonds
are turned down, the City would find some other source of funds to pay for this project.
Mr. Meyer stated this would be the case.
Councilmember Sanger withdrew her friendly amendment.
The motion passed 6-0.
8e. Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 51-98 with LeadCon, Inc. for structural
repairs to the W. 42nd Street and Zarthan Avenue water reservoir
17
Councilmember Nelson stated that he had been hearing about the color change of this particular
reservoir and residents preferred the color blue over beige.
Mr. Moore stated his department would need to contact the contractor to determine if they have
made any order on the paint at this point before they would make a recommendation on changing
the color.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt the
attached resolution execution of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $35,884.00 to Contract
No. 51-98 for structural repairs, increasing the total contract amount from $218,560.00 to
$254,444.00. The motion passed 6-0.
8f. Traffic Study No. 540: Elmwood Neighborhood request for stop signs on
Zarthan Avenue at Goodrich Avenue and on Goodrich Avenue at Brunswick
Avenue
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs on
Zarthan Avenue at Goodrich Avenue and on Goodrich Avenue at Brunswick Avenue.
8g. Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the Southwest Fire Mutual Aid
Agreement
By consent, Council adopted a resolution approving the addition of the City of Maple Grove and
the withdrawal of the V.A. Fort Snelling Fire Department in the Southwest Fire Mutual Aid
Association.
8h. 1999 Westwood Hills Nature Center Native Plant Restoration along the
Wildflower Trail
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution authorizing the City to apply for the grant
and receive the funds.
8i. 1999 Westwood Hills Nature Center Interpretive Signage along the
Wildflower Trail
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution authorizing the City to apply for the grant
and receive the funds.
9.Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Housing Authority Minutes of February 10, 1999
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
18
b. Vendor Claim Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
10a .Board and Commission Appointment(s) - None
11. New Business
11a. Bid Tabulation: One (1) Overcenter Articulating Aerial Device for Tree
Trimming
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to reject all bids
and readvertize for this equipment. The motion passed 6-0.
11b. 1999 Arbotect Injection Contract
By consent, Council designated Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the 1999 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a cost of
$7.73 per diameter inch.
11c. 1999 Dutch Elm Disease Tree Removal Bids
By consent, Council designated Emery’s Tree Service, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder, and
authorize execution of a contract for the 1999 Dutch Elm Disease Tree Removal Program in an
amount not to exceed $60,359.34.
11d. Westwood Hills Nature Center Boardwalks
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing the
project, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids.
11e. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for contract sealcoating of streets
during 1999
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution , authorizing the advertising and bidding of
contract sealcoating for 1999.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract Payments
Final - None
19
Partial
Contractor Contract No. Amount
M C Magney Construction 33-98 $61,874.45
By consent, Council approved and authorized payments.
14. Communications
Mr. Meyer, City Manager gave a brief snowstorm clean-up report and stated that the Public
Works department did not wait to go out, but did all that they could do to keep up with the
amount of snow that was not predicted by the weather service.
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adjourn the
meeting at 11:15 p.m. The motion passed 6-0.
City Clerk Mayor
20
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 8, 1998
The meeting convened at 7:20 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Sue Sanger, Jim Brimeyer, and Mayor Gail
Dorfman.
Ron Latz arrived at 7:34 p.m.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Director of Public Works
(Mr. Rardin); Director of Finance (Ms. McBride); and Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms.
McDonell).
1. Park Commons Update
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager gave a brief update of the design session that was held on
Monday, March 8th with some of the original charrette design team members, City staff, and the
development team. She believed the session was a success and noted that there was an
opportunity to come to a consensus to modify the plan that better accommodates the City’s
mission for the area and still be workable from a development perspective.
Greg Esterman of Avalon Bay Communities was also present at the session and indicated that he
would be going back to the plan and make revisions and adjustments based on the
recommendations from the meeting.
Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification of additional owner occupied housing.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that one alternative that was discussed was to make the owner occupied
housing a community of 40 units (town homes), but it was hard to keep density. She stated there
were a lot of issues to work out related to how to integrate the owner occupied units with some of
the other mixed use elements of the plan.
Councilmember Sanger did not believe 40 owner occupied units were not enough to have a stable
community.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that conversions from apartment to condominiums could be examined
although this was more sensitive from a market perspective.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the design team discussed the height of the buildings.
21
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that this was discussed related to the buildings along Town Green and the
greater height in the area, the larger open space can be accommodated and there was a need for
more architectural variety.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked what civic uses were discussed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that a post office facility, kiosk library and school location were discussed,
but there was no focus on dedicated civic space such as City Hall or art center.
Mayor Dorfman stated that creating a design with a range of housing choices would encourage
rental stability.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the width of the town green was not as critical as the
identification of it for people traveling Excelsior Boulevard. He commented on the four angles
from which the design will be perceived and assessed by the community.
Mayor Dorfman stated that she felt comfortable with the principals that have been discussed and
Council would like to see incorporated into the design plan.
Council briefly discussed the height issue related to diversity and density, the sustanability of
public facilities, parking location, public funding of project as a whole and the need to evaluate
the different users of the area.
Councilmember Latz asked for an update on proposed office use. Ms. Jeremiah noted that office
use was an important component for providing the shared parking with the park and civic uses of
the Town Green and the amendments to the “M-X” Ordinance will formally be considered by the
Planning Commission on March 17th. She noted that the recommendation of Staff that would be
going to the Planning Commission was not to allow drive-throughs in the “M-X” District.
2. Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Medical Office Development
Proposal; Review of Project Business Points
Mr. Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator presented an overview of a preliminary draft
of a set of business points which would serve as the basis for a development agreement with
Frauenshuh Companies for the construction of the project.
Randy McKay and Mike Denny of Frauenshuh Companies were present.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager asked if the interest was amortized the same way in the participation
agreement as it is in the term loan.
Mr. Anderson indicated that this was the case.
Council discussed Exhibit B, the summary of the reductions to the public financing plan from
February 3, 1999. Mr. Anderson clarified that the reduction of discount rate meant that the
22
developer was picking up the interest rate risk which would finance the gap and the City would
provide them an annual abatement payment plus interest.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if another partner would be available.
Mr. McKay stated that he didn’t think he could get another partner. He also indicated he wasn’t
very excited about the term loan because there wasn’t enough cash flow in the first ten years to
pay that money back literally.
Mayor Dorfman asked if there was an opportunity of state funding since it wasn’t declined
because of the nature of the project, but rather the number of applications and how they ranked
them.
Mr. McKay stated that given the timing he could examine this within the current scenario.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has used this participation approach before.
Mr. Anderson stated that the approach has not been used before. Mr. Denny explained a project
that he was involved at with LaSalle Plaza in Minneapolis.
Councilmember Brimeyer questioned that the amount of the Environmental Insurance Policy that
was added was not enough. Mr. Anderson indicated that the developer was assuming this risk.
Mr. Anderson summarized the City land situation and concluded that given the economics of the
project where rents have to be based on the extraordinary costs the land doesn’t have value.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she can’t assume this land has no value when it is taking a
significant amount to purchase billboard, but would rather indicate the land was worth a certain
amount and that it is an additional public contribution that is being donated to make this project
work.
Council recommended that since parking was not in budget, that cost projections be determined
before the preliminary development agreement was approved.
The Council preferred Option 2: Participation Agreement for the developer financing.
3. Railroad Study Presentation
Dick Koppy, The City’s Project Manager for the railroad study and Lee Koppy were present.
Dick Koppy presented some of the study’s highlights in accordance with the outline provided.
Lee Koppy reviewed the P.A.I. Analysis. Dick Koppy noted that 80-90% of hot line calls were
noise and vibration related. Lee Koppy concluded that many of the entities in St. Louis Park
shared the same objectives to reduce the impact of train movement through the City and assist in
the efficient movement of trains safely through the City.
23
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the potential outcomes of accomplishing these
objectives such as increasing the train time for the residents in one section of St. Louis Park
while decreasing the train time for residents in another section of St. Louis Park.
Lee Koppy reviewed the existing infrastructure and operations of the railroads in the City.
Dick Koppy explained future railroad trackage and potential scenarios in St. Louis Park
Councilmember Sanger asked if there were any calculations of what would happen to projected
train volumes if none of the options changed. Mr. Koppy indicated that what was considered
was if the Kenilworth corridor closure occurred.
Dick Koppy stated that freight rail has grown and will continue to grow
He identified alternatives and reviewed short and long term options.
Councilmember Sanger suggested scheduling another study session when additional
Councilmembers were present to discuss policy and how to proceed from here.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager suggested that staff develop some recommendations and come back to
Council with some ways in which the public could get involved in this and get the information
out to them and develop some next steps.
Councilmember Brimeyer commented on the need to focus on the long term in order to
accomplish objectives in the report.
Mayor Dorfman indicated the need to educate the public in terms of the scope of project and the
long term scenario and invite their participation in evaluating the options.
Councilmember Sanger believed an option to do nothing should be included because possibly
some of these other options are very expensive and will not be funded. She suggested
determining the feasibility and consequences of doing nothing and perhaps this would force the
railroads to underwrite the costs of these improvements themselves.
Councilmember Latz stated that it may be useful theoretically as an analysis, but may be useful
from a public relations standpoint so that the community can understand what may turn out to be
the dire negative consequences of doing nothing and the need to do something.
Dick Koppy noted that MNDot’s decision to close the Hiawatha corridor and need to fix the
problem is leverage for the City.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the results of Federal Safety Study were available. Mr. Meyer
indicated that he would follow up with getting a final copy of report.
Dick Koppy updated the Council on the report submitted to the City of Minnetonka related to
blocking operations.
24
4. Neighborhood Grant Reimbursements
Ms. McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator explained a request for a change in the grant
reimbursement system.
After a brief discussion, the Council indicated they had no objections to offering this kind of
grant payment option.
5. Comprehensive Plan Update
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director presented a report and provided an update
relative to the vacant 11 acre Honeywell property. He stated that if the Council was seriously
interested in reguiding this property, the City Attorney would need to take some additional time
analyzing how strong the City’s position would be in upholding the land use change.
Councilmember Latz stated that purchasing the property was an option.
Mr. Harmening explained the issues related to purchasing this property which included the
willingness of the landowner to participate. He also believed that a fairly dense project would
need to be developed to create the tax increment necessary. He also noted that there was no
expiration on the preliminary PUD approval in 1995.
Councilmember Sanger recommended having the City Attorney analyze how strong the City’s
position would be in upholding the land use change.
Councilmember Brimeyer was not in favor of incurring expenses for legal advise.
Councilmember Latz believed it was worthwhile to attain some legal advise to flush out options
and determine estimate of what it would cost if the City ended up in litigation.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the impact of a big box user on the Blackstone
neighborhood and cost to the community of letting that happen.
The Council directed staff to pursue an economic and legal analysis of purchasing the land for
residential use.
6. Development of Capital Financing and Debt Management Policies
Ms. McBride, Director of Finance gave a graphics presentation at the study session which
detailed the financial status of the funds related to the past and current capital financing issues
presented in the staff report.
It is was staff’s recommendation that the City issue general obligation improvement bonds to
cover project costs which have been incurred or will be incurred through 1999. It is also staff’s
25
recommendation that the bond issue include amounts for projects scheduled for construction for
2000 and 20001. This would provide advance funding for these near future costs and be
combined into one bond issue with those costs representing current and recent projects. It is also
recommended that the City continue to internally finance that portion of the projects costs which
is recouped through special assessments.
The Council discussed the issuance of bonds for projects that the City knows that will be
completed but don’t have the funding for and believed a delay would keep the City doing the
same kind of deficit financing.
Ms. McBride stated that the levy limit now only applies to operations and not bonded debt
levees.
Councilmember Sanger suggested issuing bonds to increase Park Improvement Funds
Ms. McBride provided copy of Roseville budget for review.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there was a downside to waiting and issuing nothing at this time.
Ms. McBride stated that with a time delay there would be more deficits and some older projects
would be missed.
Mr. Meyer indicated that the City was not going to do any more projects the way they have been
done in the past and explained that staff would come back to Council after taking some funds
from some source which will be running down the reserves in order to pay for these projects.
The Council agreed to keeping G.O. Debt Bond Sale separate and directed staff to bring an initial
authorizing resolution to the first City Council meeting in April and take some of the general
operating debt surplus and put in into the Park Improvement Fund.
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
26
Item # 4c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 22, 1999
The meeting convened at 6:10 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Ron Latz,
and Jim Brimeyer.
Mayor Dorfman arrived at 7:10 p.m.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Director of Public Works
(Mr. Rardin); Director of Finance (Ms. McBride); Park and Recreation Director (Ms. Welsh),
Human Resources Manager (Ms. Gohman); and Housing Coordinator (Ms. Brownstein).
1. Park Commons Phase I Master Plan
Greg Estermann of Avalon presented a revised Master Plan as outlined in the staff report. Based
upon any further direction from the Council, the plan will be refined and financial information
will be developed.
Councilmember Nelson desired to see the elevation of ground-level work/shops that have been
added to the base of the parking structures along Excelsior Blvd. He questioned the location of
the parking structures.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that from the developer’s perspective, 38th and 39th Street was
considered the main street.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned about integrating the Master Plan with Excelsior
Boulevard.
Councilmember Sanger asked if location of more retail on Excelsior Boulevard would draw more
people into the area and slow traffic.
Mr. Estermann indicated that it would be difficult to attract retail at that location.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the streetscape improvements and Town Green might help calm
traffic.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that Avalon has been asked to provide their own market information as part
of the preliminary development agreement and master planning process.
Councilmember Sanger asked how wide the Town Green was. Mr. Estermann used a football
field to visualize the Town Green. Council discussed the proposed new width of the Town
Green and believed it achieves what Council desires. Councilmember Nelson wanted to stress
27
that he didn’t want to get to far away from the discussion of the width. Ms. Jeremiah stated she
will get some preliminary elevation sketches to get a better sense of the Town Green in this
location and in comparisons to some other familiar green spaces in the metropolitan area.
Ms. Jeremiah believed it would be helpful to overlay the Phase I Master Plan on an air photo of
the existing neighborhood to see how design fits together and how close the proposed north/south
roadway is to this area.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed the visibility of open-space from Excelsior Boulevard was
important to drawing attention to Town Center.
Councilmember Jacobs indicated that the actual width of the Town Green was not important but
it had to work internally for pedestrians to walk around it and a maintain a visual interest.
Mr. Estermann explained the challenges of a mixed use design and simplification of sharing uses
to help with cost issue and functionality aspect. He noted the distribution of traffic and
pedestrians with use of roadways to assess public edge to the park.
Councilmember Latz suggested developing a pedestrian promenade along the edge of the park.
Council recommended taking additional park space needed to make design work properly for
vehicles, pedestrians and servicing.
Councilmember Nelson believed making 38th Street pedestrian friendly was a good goal, but
didn’t want to lose sight of vehicles because the area would survive economically.
2. Benefits
Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager provided background information regarding the
City of St. Louis Park benefits and why there may be some administrative advantages to
equalization.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the reason why the City has a different employer benefit
contribution based on the employment status of non-exempt and exempt employees.
Ms. Gohman stated that historically the contribution for exempt employees has been looked at as
whole part of there compensation package.
Councilmember Nelson believed that the historical record should be the justification because it
was being used to make a change to a long standing benefit. He was not in favor of the
equalization of rates for single and family benefits.
Councilmember Sanger was in favor of equalization of rates, regardless of selection of
single/family or the exempt/non-exempt classification.
28
Councilmember Latz was in favor of equalization of rates of single/family because he questioned
whether the tax payer should be subsidizing the individual choices of employees.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager noted that the variety in benefit levels has not developed a specific
pattern.
Councilmember Jacobs was in favor of equalization of rates of single/family, but believed the
exempt employees should continue to receive a high employer benefit contribution for the
cafeteria plan.
It was the consensus of the Council to stay on the current benefit course.
3. Sidewalks and Trails Master Plan
Barry Warner, SRF and Bob Close, Close Landscape Architecture provided a brief overview of
the draft of the Sidewalks and Trails Master Plan.
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director presented a staff report and recommended
discussion of the following policy issues:
· Funding mechanisms/approaches for paying for the system
Councilmember Sanger questioned the reason for the differentiation of the City Sidewalk
connections and Neighborhood sidewalk connections from the perspective of funding and
maintenance by residents.
Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification of the use of a sidewalk utility and distribution of
cost.
Staff believed that the more the City relies on the property owner to be responsible for these
items, the least likely the success of the building the system.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the sidewalk and trail plan be discussed separately and
since the plan will impact residents differently questioned if this was something Council desired
to impose on the neighborhoods.
Mayor Dorfman believed that it was important to developing a process for informing the
community of the plan and the approach for implementation show the community wide benefit.
Council discussed having the City pay for the construction of all City Sidewalk Connections and
possibly neighborhood Sidewalk Connections with options outlined by staff.
· Long term repair and replacement responsibilities
Council agreed that current policy regarding repair and replacement would not change.
29
· Snow removal responsibilities
Council discussed the snow removal alternatives and agreed that having the City remove snow
from all sidewalks within the City of St. Louis Park would be easy to sell.
Mayor Dorfman believed that requiring property owners to remove the snow from sidewalks
which front their property builds neighborhood responsibility and community pride.
Council discussed enforcement feasibility of requiring all property owners to be responsible for
the removal of snow from sidewalks adjacent to their property.
Councilmember Sanger believed that the City needs to be consistent and should either do all of
the snow removal or none at all.
· Phasing/timing of construction
Council recommended moving forward with the first priority City sidewalks and trails and
crossings without the neighborhood sidewalks and do a utility bond issue and proceed from there.
Mr. Harmening asked why would you do only part of the first priority. Mayor Dorfman stated
that politically it would be a easier sell to the community.
Councilmember Sanger recommended doing all of the City sidewalks and trails and crossings.
Council directed staff to put together a revised first priority proposal with some financing
scenarios.
4. Follow-up Discussion on Capital Financing and Debt Issuance
Ms. McBride, Director of Finance provided some additional information with regards to the
proposed G.O. improvement bond issue planned for this spring or the financing of other projects,
such as trails and sidewalks.
Bob Ehlers of Ehlers and Associates, the City’s financial consulting firm was present.
5. Comprehensive Plan Update
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator indicated that the Comprehensive Plan document was now
complete and gave a brief update about the distribution schedule of the Comprehensive Plan draft
and the method of notification.
Councilmember Latz believed it was fundamental to inform the neighborhood organization
leaders of the Ward meetings.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the Comprehensive Plan relative to the Honeywell site.
30
Mr. Harmening stated that the Honeywell site in the Comprehensive Plan is guided as entirely as
Commercial which is different that was talked about in the past about guiding part of the
property Residential. After a short discussion about the interest in actually purchasing the
property and conducting of an economic analysis, the Council decided not to complete a
thorough economic analysis at this time.
6. Reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard west of Trunk Highway 100
Mr. Rardin, Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed reconstruction of Excelsior
Boulevard west of Trunk Highway 100 and to obtain Council input regarding the need, design
concepts, funding, and the community participation process associated with this work.
Councilmember Nelson stated that the neighborhood was very interested in continuing the
streetscape improvements to the west of Highway 100 for pedestrian/vehicle safety issues.
Council directed staff to determine if the area businesses would be in support of a final
infrastructure and develop a mini “Streetscape” design with anticipated costs beyond the curbs
and median enhancements.
7. Railroad Discussion
Mr. Meyer, City Manager gave a brief update of the options regarding short term action steps and
the recommendations for future actions as outlined in the report and reviewed the issue related to
the City of Hopkins.
Richard Koppy, Railroad Study Project Manager and Lee Koppy were present.
The Council briefly discussed the history of the railroad operation problems with the City of
Hopkins and the City of Minnetonka.
Dick Koppy recommended that the noise study component of the environmental study be
completed as a first phase item. The main reason for putting this item first would be that this is
the one area that holds promise for action in the near future that could alleviate an existing
problem and gain negotiation leverage with other communities, railroads and the federal
government.
Councilmember Sanger recommended developing the best long range solution for a number of
the railroad issues so that other neighborhoods can see the overall benefit for the community.
Dick Koppy stated that the short term plan surfaced quickly and has the momentum to get
something done right away.
31
Mr. Meyer stated that since there was no objection by Council, staff would start to develop a
neighborhood process for the railroad study report and refine the next steps for some consulting
work.
8. Subdivision of Residential Lots
Councilmember Sanger indicated there was a need to examine the definitions of zoning districts.
Mr. Meyer stated that there were some things that can be done to address this issue and staff
would prepare some suggestions for Council to review in the future.
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8a. First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the “R-C” District and Add a
Definition of “Live-Work Units” to the Zoning Code.
Case No. 99-4-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve First Reading
of an ordinance to amend the “R-C” Multiple Family Residential
District and to adopt a definition for live-work units and set
Second Reading for April 19, 1999.
Background:
The “R-C” District currently allows high density multiple-family residential development.
However, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for such residential development, whereas
offices are currently permitted in the “R-C” District without the requirement of a CUP or public
hearing. One property which was recently rezoned to “R-C” is the Mill City Plywood site.
On February 3, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated amendments to the “R-C” Multiple-
Family Residential District to better reflect Comprehensive Plan housing goals for these areas.
The proposed amendments are intended to help facilitate residential development, so that
housing goals can be achieved. Non-residential uses could be considered through more stringent
review processes or in a mixed-use context. “Live-work units” are one example of a mixed-use
opportunity that would be made available in the “R-C” District via the proposed amendments.
Since the use is currently not defined by the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed amendments
include a definition for “live-work units”.
Prior to formal Planning Commission review, the proposed amendments were reviewed by staff
from various departments. On March 17, 1999, the Planning Commission considered the
amendments and suggested certain clarifications, which have been incorporated. The Planning
Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance on a vote of 5-0 based on a finding that the
amendments better reflect Comprehensive Plan goals for these areas.
Issues:
• How Would Multiple-Family Residential Development Be Facilitated?
• How Would “Live-Work Units” Be Defined and Restricted?
• How Would Offices and Other Non-Residential Uses Be Restricted?
33
Analysis of Issues:
• How Would Multiple-Family Residential Development Be Facilitated?
Staff proposed facilitating multiple-family residential development and cluster housing (such as
townhomes) by making them uses that are permitted with conditions. Such uses can be
approved without a public hearing if they meet all of the conditions that are listed in the Zoning
District as well as other performance standards in the Zoning Code (such as parking and
architectural standards). Staff proposes retaining the seven conditions of approval for multiple-
family dwellings/cluster housing that are currently included in the Conditional Use Permit
section of the “R-C” District. However, since some areas with “R-C” Zoning (such as Hwy.
7/Louisiana and Park Commons) may be subject to redevelopment plans with specific standards
that have endured substantial public review, staff proposes that the usual conditions may be
waived if the development proposal complies with an adopted Redevelopment Plan for the area.
Such Redevelopment Plans will be adopted as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan, which
involves public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council.
• How Would “Live-Work Units” Be Defined and Restricted?
The proposed definition of “live-work units” would be added to the Land Use Descriptions
section of the Zoning Ordinance, which currently includes six other residential definitions. The
general intent is to allow people to work out of their homes with fewer restrictions than home
occupations in certain higher intensity districts. However, the business use would not be allowed
to substantially alter the exterior of the property or character of the neighborhood. Therefore,
certain types of businesses that are industrial in character, high impact, or generally inappropriate
in close proximity to residential uses would not be allowed.
It is staff’s intent that live-work units would be permitted with conditions in both the “R-C” and
“M-X” Mixed-Use Districts. However, since the “R-C” is generally intended to be more
residential in character compared to the “M-X” District, staff and the Planning Commission
propose that the use be more restricted in the “R-C” District. The proposed restrictions in the
“R-C” District are included in the attached ordinance amendments. They include assurances that
adequate parking is provided, retail space is limited (so that substantial activity and parking does
not result from the use), hours of operation are limited, signage is limited to the same amount
allowed for home occupations, and a Certificate of Occupancy is required, so that an inspection
is completed and there is a clear enforcement mechanism.
• How Would Offices and Other Non-Residential Uses Be Restricted?
Existing and Approved Offices: There are currently 24 offices, including City Hall, in “R-C”
Districts. In addition to the existing offices, the City recently approved potential office
development on a portion of the old “Hutchinson Spur” railroad corridor just south of 36th Street
in an “R-C” District. While the City would generally prefer to see residential development or
redevelopment of “R-C” District properties in the future to meet housing goals, the ramifications
34
of making the existing or approved offices non-conforming would be severe. Therefore, staff
proposes “grandfathering” these existing and approved uses, so that they are still classified as
permitted uses. This would allow existing offices to expand or rebuild if they are destroyed. It
would also allow approved offices to be built. However, it would not prevent future residential
use of these properties from being considered.
Future Commercial Uses: Staff proposes that additional new offices and other commercial-type
uses, such as retail, service and medical offices be allowed only in the ground floor of mixed-use
buildings that are primarily residential. Staff also proposes that such development would require
Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, so that substantial review, and public discourse
would be required. An example of the type of development that could be considered in this
manner would be the multi-story, mixed-use proposal for the Nevens Drycleaner property
(although that property is not zoned “R-C”). Hospitals would continue to need a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and would also have to meet a new condition of being located in areas designated
as Office on the Comprehensive Plan. Hotels/motels would also continue to need a CUP and
would further need to meet a new condition that they not substantially detract from meeting
housing goals.
Civic Uses: Other non-residential uses that are currently being classified as “Civic”, such as
community centers, schools, libraries, and religious institutions, would need to locate where the
Comprehensive Plan designates such “Civic” uses. This could include areas designated as
“Civic-Mixed Use”. Such mixed-use areas would likely have adopted Redevelopment Plans that
could supersede other conditions of approval. Hence, such language has been included.
Review Process: If new uses wanted to locate on “R-C” properties that did not have the
appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation for the use, the applicant could request an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. In this manner, substantial review and public hearings
would ensue, and the importance of meeting housing goals could be discussed.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adopting the proposed amendments to the “R-C
District and the new definition for “live-work units”.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-3.2.A.7. AND 14:5-4.6
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. 99-4-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 14:5-3.2.A.7. and 14:5-4.6 are hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 14:5-3.2 DESCRIPTIONS
A. RESIDENTIAL USES. (add No. 7 Live-Work Unit, page 66)
7. LIVE-WORK UNIT - A dwelling unit that includes space for the gainful employment of
a resident of the dwelling unit and up to two employees who may not be residents of the
dwelling unit. The floor area devoted to the business use may not exceed the floor area
devoted to the residential use within the unit. Any space that will be used by walk-in
customers of the business must be accessible from an exterior entrance that is not used to
access other residential units. With the exception of the exterior entrance, the business
cannot substantially alter the exterior of the property or substantially affect the character
of the neighborhood or the health, safety and welfare of the residents. The business
space must be designed to permit conversion to residential space with minimum work
and no structural changes. Uses which are not allowed include but are not limited to the
following: uses classified as Industrial; appliance, small engine and bicycle repair; motor
vehicle sales; motor vehicle service and repair; pawnshops; animal handling; bars; food
service; restaurants; private entertainment; and sexually-oriented businesses.
SECTION 14:5-4.6 "R-C" High Density Multiple Family Residence District (page 123)
A. PURPOSE AND EFFECT
The purposes of the "R-C" High Density Multiple Family Residence District are to provide
appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of dwelling types at densities of
generally up to 50 units per acre (or up to 75 units per acre by PUD) with sound standards for
public health and safety; to preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the
single family residential districts while permitting higher population densities; to provide
opportunities for accessory and transitional commercial uses to support residential development;
to insure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit; provide space for
institutions which require residential environments; to provide community services such as parks,
schools, religious facilities, and community centers supportive to a residential area while
safeguarding its residential character; to minimize traffic congestion and the impacts of high
36
traffic volumes; to provide space for off-street parking of automobiles; and to protect residential
properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare,
and other objectionable influences.
B. PERMITTED USES
The following uses are permitted in the "R-C" High Density Multiple Family Residence Use
District if the use complies with the Residential Restrictions and Performance Standards of
Section 14: 5-4.1 of this Ordinance:
1. ROOMING HOUSE
2. STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES SERVING SIXTEEN (16) OR FEWER
PERSONS
3. PARK AND OPEN SPACE
4. OFFICE IN EXISTENCE OR HAVING RECEIVED PRELIMINARY OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL BY MARCH 1, 1999
5. TRANSIT STATIONS
C. USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS
A structure or land in an "R-C" High Density Multiple Family Residence Use District may be
used for one (1) or more of the following uses if it complies with the Residential Restrictions and
Performance Standards of Section 14: 5-4.1 and with those specified for the use in this
Subsection "C".
1. ADULT DAY CARE
Conditions:
a. The facility shall be located in a religious facility, community center, nursing
home or hospital.
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor area for seating or exercise area shall
be provided for each person under care.
2. GROUP DAY CARE/NURSERY SCHOOL
Conditions:
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil must be provided
and such space shall be enclosed by Fence "F3" and Bufferyard "C". (amended
by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain
vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c. The play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined
on the Comprehensive Plan as a principal arterial.
3. GROUP HOME/NON-STATUTORY
Conditions:
a. A minimum of 800 square feet of lot area shall be provided for each person
housed on the site.
37
b. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space shall be provided for each
person housed on the site.
c. The residence structure shall be occupied by not more than 50 persons under
treatment.
d. The use shall be located a minimum of 1500 feet from two (2) other Group
Homes. (amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
e. Any group home accommodating 20 or more persons shall provide an outdoor
recreation area. Said recreation area shall be located a minimum of 25 feet of
any parcel in an "R" Use District.
f. A Bufferyard "D" shall be provided along any abutting lot located within an "R"
Use District.
g. A minimum of 300 square feet of gross building area shall be provided for each
resident.
4. NURSING HOME
Conditions:
a. A minimum of 500 square feet of lot area in shall be provided for each person to
be housed on the site.
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from a lot in an "R" Use
District.
c. The lot shall contain a minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space per
resident.
d. The structure housing the use shall comply with the requirements of the state law
and the Building Code regulating the construction of licensed nursing homes.
5. COMMUNITY CENTERS
Conditions:
a. The building shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any lot in an "R"
Use District.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain
vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor areas intended for group activities shall be located a minimum of 25
feet from any lot in an "R" Use District and shall be buffered from such
residential lot with a Bufferyard "D".
d. Conditions a through c may be waived if the development is in conformance
with an adopted Redevelopment Plan for the area.
e The property shall be designated for Civic or Civic-Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan.
6. EDUCATIONAL (Academic)
Conditions:
a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a lot in an "R" Use
District.
38
b. An off-street school bus pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided in order to
maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from
any lot in an "R" use district, and shall be buffered from such residential use
with a Bufferyard "C".
d. Conditions a through c may be waived if the development is in conformance
with an adopted Redevelopment Plan for the area.
e. The property shall be designated for Civic or Civic-Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. LIBRARIES
Conditions:
a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot in an "R" Use District
unless the development is in conformance with an adopted Redevelopment Plan
for the area.
b. The property shall be designated for Civic or Civic-Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan.
8. PARKS AND RECREATION (amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
Conditions:
a. The principal structure shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a lot in an
"R" use district.
b. Areas designated for group activities shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from
a lot in an "R" use district.
c. A Bufferyard "C" shall be constructed along the property line when said use
abuts property residentially used or in one of the "R" Use Districts; this
bufferyard shall include a berm "B2" or fence "F4" which shall be adequately
maintained. This provision shall not require a fence within the required front
yard or where it interferes with traffic visibility at intersections; 14:4-6.
d. The entire site other than that taken up by structures, required bufferyards, or
other landscaped areas shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and
drainage.
e. Swimming pools shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line and a
minimum of 12 feet from any other structure on the same lot.
f. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be installed.
g. Facilities which serve a community-wide or regional function shall be located
with primary vehicular access on a collector or arterial street.
h. Facilities within 300 feet of a property in an "R" Use District that require night
lighting shall be lighted according to a lighting plan approved by the Director of
Public Works which shall include fixture specifications and demonstrate that off
site impacts will be minimized. Such facilities shall have a Bufferyard "F"
located along the property lines of the facility which abut an "R" Use District.
9. POLICE/FIRE STATION
39
Conditions:
a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from a lot an "R" Use District.
(amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Unobstructed visibility shall be provided from the driveway to the adjacent
streets for emergency vehicles and a traffic light shall be installed at the entrance
to the facility to control non-emergency traffic if recommended by the Director
of Public Works.
10. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
Conditions:
a. All buildings shall be located a minimum of thirty (30) feet from any lot in an
"R" Use District.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Conditions a and b may be waived if the development is in conformance with an
adopted Redevelopment Plan for the area.
d. The property shall be designated for Civic or Civic-Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan.
11. COMMUNICATION TOWER
Conditions:
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard or bufferyard.
e. A free standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times
its collapse radius from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that
another alternative to piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower
or building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the
structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a
minimum of twice its height from any "R-1", R-2", or "R-3 zoned parcel.
12. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING/CLUSTER HOUSING
Conditions:
40
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space
per dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in the front yard.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
buildings.
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to
share common walls.
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb
line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
f. No portion of the required 20 foot road system may be used to satisfy the off-
street parking requirements.
g. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of
the lot that abut a public street.
h. Conditions a through g may be waived if the development is in conformance
with an adopted Redevelopment Plan for the area.
13. LIVE-WORK UNITS
Conditions:
a. The use shall meet parking requirements for both the residential and business
space except that the number of required business parking spaces may be
reduced by the number of residents who work in the business. On-street parking
directly in front of the business may be counted toward business parking
requirements
b. Retail space is limited to 360 square feet.
c. Hours of operation are limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm.
d. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area
may be used to identify the business use.
e. A Certificate of Occupancy is required.
D. USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
No structure or land in any "R-C" High Density Multiple Family Residential Use District shall be
used for the following uses except by Conditional Use Permit. These uses shall comply with the
Residential Restrictions and Performance Standards of Section 14: 5-4.1, the general conditions
of Section 14: 6-7, and with the Specific Conditions imposed in this Subsection "D":
1. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING/CLUSTER HOUSING
Conditions:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space
per dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in the front yard.
41
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
buildings.
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to
share common walls.
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb
line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
f. No portion of the required 20 foot road system may be used to satisfy the off-
street parking requirements.
g. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of
the lot that abut a public street.
(amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93 "c" deleted and "d" through "h" reletter
"c" through "g")
(Letter "g" deleted by Ord 1999-94 6-6-94)
(Letter “g” added by Ord. 2111-98 3-16-98)
21. ELDERLY HOUSING
Conditions:
a. Property shall meet all of the conditional use requirements of multiple family
dwellings above.
b. A minimum of 25 percent of the usable open space shall be developed as
outdoor recreation or garden areas.
c. Elderly Housing shall provide a minimum of 900 square feet of lot area for each
dwelling unit.
d. The property owner shall record a covenant to run with the land executed in a
form approved by the City which restricts the use of the property to occupancy
by the elderly.
e. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms equal
in aggregate size to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
32. HOSPITAL
Conditions:
a. Buildings located within 100 feet of any "R-1", "R-2", or "R-3" Use District
shall be limited to the lesser of four (4) stories or 45 feet. The height of all other
buildings shall be regulated by yard and floor area ratio requirements.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. Internal traffic circulation shall be designed to minimize traffic within 100 feet
of any abutting residential property.
d. A Bufferyard "F" shall be installed and maintained along any abutting "R" Use
Districts.
e. The property shall be designated for Office use in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICES
42
Conditions
a. Buildings located within 100 feet of any "R-1", "R-2", or "R-3" Use District
shall be limited to the lesser of four (4) stories or 45 feet. The height of all other
buildings shall be regulated by yard and floor area ratio requirements.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
53. PUBLIC SERVICE STRUCTURE
Conditions:
a. All exterior faces of all buildings shall meet the provisions of Section 14:6-6.
(amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
b. All structures shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any lot in an "R" Use
District. (amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
c. All service drives shall be paved.
d. A Bufferyard "C" shall be installed and maintained along property lines in an
"R" Use District. (amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
d. The use shall be found not to substantially detract from meeting housing goals
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
64. HOTEL/MOTEL
Conditions:
a. This use shall not be located within 100 feet of any low density residential
parcels as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
c. This use may not include restaurants, convention facilities, or food service as
another primary use on the same site or as an accessory use.
d. The use shall be found not to substantially detract from meeting housing goals
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. HOSTEL
Conditions:
a. The hostel shall be affiliated with a national or international hostel organization
and shall be subject to the operating procedures of such organization.
b. The hostel shall be available for occupancy only by members of the affiliate or
the parent organization.
c. The hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
43
d. Overnight parking of vehicles whose passenger capacity exceeds 15 shall be
prohibited on the site.
e. Any outdoor activity area shall be located as far as practicable from abutting
residential properties.
f. No room shall contain more than 4 beds.
E. USES PERMITTED BY PUD
No structure or land in an "R-C" High Density Multiple Family Residential Use District, shall be
used for the following uses except by the PUD Process. Provisions for the PUD and
modifications to dimensional standards and densities are provided under Section 14:6-7:
1. Retail other than accessory
2. Service other than accessory
1. GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, SERVICE, OFFICE, AND MEDICAL OFFICE IN
MIXED USE BUILDINGS THAT ARE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL
F. ACCESSORY USES
The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an "R-C" High Density Multiple Family
Residential Use District:
1. Private garages and parking spaces
2. Tennis courts
3. Private swimming pools
4. Family Day Care Facilities
5. Service and Retail facilities intended for use by residents not to exceed 10 percent of the
gross floor area of the development.
6. Home Occupations complying with all of the following conditions:
a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure.
b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right of
way.
c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution, or retail sales of
merchandise produced off the site.
d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home
except that a licensed Group Family Day Care Facility may have one outside
employee.
e. No light or vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the
property line.
f. Only equipment, machinery, and materials which are normally found in the home
are used in the conduct of the home occupation.
g. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is
used to identify the home occupation.
h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one
room or 10% of the floor area, whichever is greater.
44
i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached
accessory building.
j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in
the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or
students, the home occupation has received a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Keeping of not more than two (2) boarders or roomers by a resident family.
8. Living quarters of persons employed for domestic or medical purposes on the premises.
9. Signs, as regulated by this Ordinance.
10. Gardening and other horticultural uses if the sale of those products on the premises is in
compliance with Home Occupation provisions.
11. Decorative landscape features including but not limited to pools, arbors, and terraces.
12. Parking Ramps provided that they are in conformance with the adopted Redevelopment
Plan for the area or all of the following conditions are met:
a. The height of any parking ramp located within 200 feet of any "R-1", "R-2", or
"R-3" Use District may not penetrate the height of a line commencing at and
perpendicular to the Use District line and extending upward and away from the
"R-1", "R-2", or "R-3" Use District line at a slope of 5 horizontal feet for each
vertical foot.
b. The minimum yard requirement for any parking ramp located within 200 feet of
any parcel in an "R-1", "R-2", or "R-3" Use District shall be 50 feet.
c. The parking ramp shall be screened from view from any abutting property
located within an "R" Use District with a Bufferyard "F". This bufferyard shall
include a berm B4 or a berm wall BW3 where the parking ramp is above ground.
d. If the parking ramp is located within 400 feet of any property in an "R" Use
District, 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 ten feet lower than the maximum structure height of
the "R" Use District at a distance of 400 feet from the wall of the parking ramp
nearest to the "R" Use District.
13. Helistops are permitted as an accessory use to a hospital provided that it is used
exclusively in connection with the hospital and is subordinate to the hospital in area,
extent, and purpose. The helicopter pad must be dust free and screened from view and
take off and landings shall not be over residential areas. Hours of operation shall be
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., excluding emergency operations.
14. Incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted use which shall not
occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the floor area nor more than thirty percent
(30%) of the gross labor hours required to conduct the permitted principal use.
15. Leasing and management offices associated with residential uses.
G. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES
45
The following standards shall apply unless the development is in conformance with the adopted
Redevelopment Plan for the area or as provided in Section 14:6-7 of this Ordinance:
1. No structure or building shall exceed six (6) stories or seventy-five (75) feet in height,
whichever is less, except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this
Ordinance.
2. The floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.2 and the ground floor area ratio shall not exceed
0.25.
3. A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet in width
4. The density shall not exceed 50 units per acre.
5. The minimum lot area shall be 15,000 square feet; except as provided under Section 14-
300 where subdivisions for the purpose of establishing condominium ownership result in
lot sizes smaller than the established minimum.
6. The minimum lot width shall be 80 feet; except as provided under Section 14-300 where
subdivisions for the purpose of establishing condominium ownership result in lot sizes
smaller than the established minimum.
7. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet or a distance equal to the
building height, unless the average depth of at least two (2) existing buildings within 150
feet along the same block front of the lot in question are less than or greater than 30 feet,
then the required front yard depth shall be the average depth of such existing front yards
or the building height whichever is greater. However, the depth of the front yard shall
not be less than 15 feet or be required to exceed fifty (50) feet if the building height is
less than fifty (50) feet. (amended by Ord 1915-93 5-3-93)
8. The required side yards shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on one side and one-half
(1/2) the building height on the other if the building height is less than 40 feet. If the
building height exceeds 40 feet the side yards shall be fifteen (15) feet plus 1 foot for
each foot of building height in excess of 40 feet on one side and twenty (20) feet plus
one (1) foot for each foot of building height in excess of 40 feet on the other. If property
abuts land in the R-1, R-2 or R-3 Use District at the side yard, that side shall have the
greatest depth.
9. The width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased two (2)
inches for each foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds fifty (50)
feet . For the purpose of this section, a wall includes any building wall within
ten (10) degrees of being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a lot.
10. Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not
parallel by more than ten (10) degrees with the side lot line, to permit the
average depth of the side yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in
the District, but no side yard shall be less than five (5) feet deep. No side
yard shall be reduced to prevent construction of a driveway from the street
46
into the rear of the lot unless a garage which has access from the street is
located on the lot or an alley provides a secondary access to the rear yard of
the lot.
11. The rear yard depth shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet except when the rear lot
line of land on the R-C Use District abuts lands in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 Use District, then
the yard requirement shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet or the building height
of the building in the R-C Use District, whichever is greater.
12. All dwelling units shall be at or above the grade of all land abutting the structure within a
distance of twenty-five (25) feet from all faces of the building.
13. Each lot shall contain at least four hundred (400) square feet of usable open space for
each dwelling unit contained thereon.
14. Any parcels which are subdivided under Section 14-300 for the purpose of creating
condominium ownership are permitted provided that the overall density created within
all condominium parcels plus the common lot do not exceed the maximum density
permitted within the zoning district. Provisions for open space may be provided on a
common lot. Any front, rear, and side yard dimensions required by this section shall
apply from the building face to the property line of the common lot.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 99-4-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
47
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8b. Resolution Providing For The Sale Of Up To $2,500,000 In General Obligation
Improvement Bonds.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution.
Background:
This resolution will authorize the City’s financial consultant and Bond Counsel to begin work on
an improvement bond sale. Staff will work with both firms in compiling the preparation of the
official statement. Section 6.15 (b) of the City Charter specifies that six votes are required in
order to authorize a bond issue.
Analysis:
The amount of bonds specified in the resolution sets a maximum. The final size of the issue may
be less. In addition to the financing of (recent past, current and future) improvement projects
previously discussed, $500,000 has been added for the engineering / design work for the first
priority items related to the Sidewalks and Trails Master Plan.
Analysis:
Improvement Projects Included
At this time it is estimated that approximately $1,100,000 in completed project costs can be
included in the bond issue. This may be reduced once complete documentation is made. In
previous reports to Council, it has been noted that IRS Reimbursement Regulations specify limits
in how far back local governments can go in recouping costs.
In addition to past project costs, current and projects scheduled through the year 2001 are
included. This list is shown on the following page. The estimated total for the City’s share of
these projects is just under $500,000.
Bob Ehlers of Ehlers and Associates has prepared a pre-sale report for Council.
48
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS LIST
Project #Description Location
Estimated
(Const.)
Costs
Proposed
Funding
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
(Project type, other)
1999
PW-98-12 Street Parkdale Drive $ 60,000 GO, SPA (Mill&Overlay;Remove RR - Public Meeting
PW-97-22,99-Street & Water Shelard Park - Ford Rd from Ford Ln to I-394 front. Rd (4th 190,000 GO, WUF Final Project (4 of 4)
PW-99-03 Traffic/Signals Emergency vehicle pre-emption (Mtka Blvd @ Vernon & 30,000 GO
PW-99-04 Walks & Trails Random Sidewalk Repair - City Wide 75,000 Str Bud Maintenance Project
PW-98-09 Trail Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail 1,300,000 Fed., State, City Funding is from various agencies
$ 1,655,000
2000
PW-96-25 Street/San/Storm Dakota Avenue - Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard $ 125,000 SPA, GO, Other, (Mill & Overlay, C&G) - Public Meeting
PW-96-34 Traffic/Lighting 33rd Street - Dakota Ave.to Idaho Ave.(Street lights around 80,000 SPA,GO With Dakota Ave. project - Public Meeting
PW-RR Crossing Replacement @ Dakota Ave. & Lake St. 200,000 unk Rail Issue Concern
PW-Traffic/Signals Emergency vehicle pre-emption (CLR & Zarthan; 36th St & 35,000 GO
$ 440,000
2001
PW-92-16 Streets Kilmer Neighborhood $ 350,000 GO, SPA, MSA (Replace. Mill & Overlay, C&G) - Public Meeting
PW-Traffic/Signals Emerg. veh. pre-emption (PPB & I394 SFR; 33rd & Texas) 35,000 GO
PW -Traffic/Lighting Lake Street- Minnetonka Blvd. to Highway 7 120,000 SPA, GO (ReplacePoles,Lights,Undergrou - Public Meeting
$ 505,000
Estimated portion of costs financed by
G.O. Bonds is $190,000
Estimated portion of costs financed by
G.O. Bonds is $150,000
Estimated portion of costs financed by
G.O. Bonds is $150,000
49
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Council approve the resolution authorizing the sale of up to
$2,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Bond Sale Report from Ehlers & Associates
Prepared by: Kathleen McBride
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
50
RESOLUTION NO. 99-_____
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF UP TO
$2,500,000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is
necessary and expedient to issue up to $,2,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds for acquisition,
betterment and improvements of streets, street intersections, parks and related public
conveniences (the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc. (“Ehlers”), as its
independent financial advisor and Briggs and Morgan, P.A., as Bond Counsel for the Bonds and
is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
475.60, subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for
the sale of the Bonds as noted above and Briggs and Morgan to prepare legal documentation.
2. Meetings; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet on a date to be
determined for the purpose of considering proposals for, and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale of the Bonds, the officers or
employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the
preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver said official
statements on behalf of the City upon completion.
4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
51
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8c
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8c. Resolution Authorizing Transfers from the Matured Special Assessment and
Permanent Improvement Revolving Funds to cover past capital projects costs
The resolution authorizes the transfers of money from both the Matured Special
Assessment Fund and the PIR Fund to cover the costs for old improvement project
costs for which the City cannot or chooses not to bond for..
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the transfers as of
December 31, 1998
Background:
Staff has had a number of discussions with the Mayor and Council regarding the past practice of
internal financing capital projects. This action will formally authorize the internal financing of
those projects for which the City can no longer issue bonds for because those costs were incurred
too long ago.
Analysis:
A permanent transfer from the City’s PIR Fund will be made to cover these costs. In the case of
projects which have been assessed to the benefiting properties, a transfer from the Matured
Special Assessment Fund will cover the costs of the projects. This interim financing will be
repaid over future years as the special assessments are received.
These transfers represent a key step in updating how the City manages its capital financing
methods.
The resolution specifies that these transfers be effective at December 31, 1998 and will be
reflected in the year-end financial statements.
Added Note on the General Fund - Status of Fund Balance at Year-End
The results of operations for 1998 show a surplus. The bottom-line on revenues ($15,065,482)
less expenditures ($14,216,070) increased fund balance by a total of $849,412. The amount
required for cash flow was updated to reflect the following’s year’s need. In addition, a reserve
for prepaid items was necessary.
52
The result of these calculations was an additional $617,778 available above and beyond the
amounts required for reserves or cash flow calculations. This amount has been removed from the
General Fund and will be held in the PIR Fund. At this time last year, specific uses for the
surplus was determined and permanent transfers made to the IT operation for the LAN upgrade
with the remainder going to the Parks Improvement Fund. Staff is not in a position at this time to
recommend a final disposition. In a few months, as the budget development process begins, staff
will examine the City’s unmet needs and make an appropriate recommendations for Council’s
consideration.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the attached resolution be approved to authorize the transfers effective on
December 31, 1998
Attachments:
• Resolution authorizing transfers from the Matured Special Assessment and PIR Funds to the
Special Assessment Construction Fund as of December 31, 1998
Prepared By:
Kathleen McBride, Director of Finance
Approved by:
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Calculation of Cash Flow Requirement
31-Dec 31-Dec
1997 1998
Subsequent Year's
Levy 7,015,564$7,375,485$
Homestead & Ag. Credit 2,197,237 2,272,345
Local Performance Aid 58,275 53,240
Local Govt. Aid 1,938,761 1,857,280
Subtotal 11,209,837 11,558,350
50%5,604,919 5,779,175
Amount required for Prepaid Expense - 57,377
Total Fund Balance needed 5,604,919$5,836,552$
53
54
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
TRANSFERS FROM THE MATURED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND
PIR FUNDS TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998
WHEREAS, the City has incurred improvement project costs and requires appropriate
financing for such costs; and;
WHEREAS, the City has funds available to finance on a permanent or interim basis such
project costs,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, that $2,298,057.06 be transferred from the Matured Special
Assessment Fund to the Special Assessment Construction Fund for project costs which have
been or will be assessed to the benefiting properties; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $1,842,683.51 be transferred from the PIR Fund to
the Special Assessment Construction Fund for project costs representing the City share of
improvement projects; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such transfers be made and recorded to the City’s
books as of December 31, 1998.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
55
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8d. Purchase of Property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South by the City from the
Housing Authority.
This report considers the purchase of the vacant lot at 2916 Maryland Avenue
South by the City from the Housing Authority for development of a storm water
pond.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the purchase
of the property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South from the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park.
Background: In 1998 the City undertook a storm water study of twenty-two flood problem
areas throughout the community. This Study included the area surrounding 2916 Maryland
Avenue South which has endured flood problems in severe storm events for a number of years.
The Flood Study recommended the City purchase this property for the development of a ponding
area. The City’s consultant for the Flood Study developed preliminary plans for the pond which
were presented to the abutting property owners at a meeting on February 16, 1999. Although the
final details of the Plan still need to be completed, the residents all agreed the lot should be
retained for ponding purposes. The development of a pond on this site is scheduled to be
presented for Council consideration next year. Purchasing the property now from the Housing
Authority will allow the Housing Authority to utilize those funds for another project this year. It
should also be noted that the Housing Authority is anticipated to approve a resolution at its April
14th meeting approving the sale to the City.
Financial Considerations: It is proposed that the funding to purchase this property come from
the Sewer Utility Fund. The cost for the purchase of the property is $48,136.25. This purchase
price includes the original purchase price of the Housing Authority ($37,243.90); legal fees
($1,025.00); demolition and tree removal ($8,482.50); taxes, utilities, and insurance ($1,059.85).
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the purchase of this property for future storm water
ponding purposes.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
56
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY AT 2916 MARYLAND AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park does hereby determine that it is
necessary to acquire the property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South from the Housing Authority for
development of a storm water pond; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City of St. Louis Park purchase the property at 2916 Maryland Avenue
South (see attached Exhibit A) located in Hennepin County that:
1. That the Mayor, City Manager, and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any and
all documents necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to effect the acquisition of the
necessary property interests, and the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to pay
$48,136.25 to the St. Louis Park Housing Authority, upon delivery of the recordable
documents together with an opinion by the City Attorney of the City of St. Louis Park,
approving the transfer documents.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
57
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8e. Resolution accepting resignation and declaring vacancy in the office of mayor
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of
Mayor effective April 6, 1999
Background:
Mayor Gail Dorfman has submitted her resignation as Mayor of St. Louis Park effective April 6,
1999 due to her election to the position of Hennepin County Commissioner. The Council is
required by Section 2.05 of the City Charter to promptly by resolution declare a vacancy in the
office for the remainder of the term. The term of office for the Mayor runs through January 3,
2000.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
58
RESOLUTION NO. __99-44_________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION AND
DECLARING VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF MAYOR
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park Mayor Gail Dorfman submitted a letter of resignation effective
April 6, 1999, leaving a vacancy in the office for a term expiring January 3, 2000 and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the City Charter the Council shall accept the
resignation and declare a vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that a vacancy is
hereby declared for the office of Mayor effective April 6, 1999 for the remainder of the term to
expire January 3, 2000.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
59
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8f. Appointment to fill the vacancy in the office of Mayor effective April 6, 1999
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution making an appointment
to the office of Mayor to fill vacancy.
Background:
Gail Dorfman has submitted her resignation from the office of Mayor of St. Louis Park effective
April 6, 1999. The City Charter provides in Section 2.05 that the City Council shall promptly
declare a vacancy in the Council by resolution. That action will be taken separately. Upon the
declaration of the vacancy the Council is then further required by Charter to act promptly to
appoint an eligible person to fill the vacancy unless the vacancy occurs within 90 days of the next
regularly scheduled City election. This vacancy will have occurred more than 90 days in
advance of the next regularly scheduled election, hence the Council is required to make an
appointment.
Section 2.06 of the City Charter provides for the selection by the Council of a Mayor Pro Tem
“who shall act as Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability or absence from the City.” The City
Attorney has advised that the Mayor Pro Tem does not become the interim Mayor by default but
rather the Council must make an appointment to fill the vacancy. The language of the Charter
limits the role of Mayor Pro Tem to acting during the Mayor’s disability or absence and does not
speak to the role in the case of a vacancy. In light of the Mayor’s significant role especially in
the case of disaster declarations it would be advisable to make an appointment as soon as
possible.
While the Council has not met to discuss the appointment to the position of Mayor, I have
prepared the attached resolution should the Council choose to act as soon as the April 5, 1999
meeting. By placing this item on the City Council agenda the public is at least notified of the
possibility of an appointment at this meeting. If the Council is not prepared to make an
appointment then the item is simply deferred.
The resolution is prepared with the name of the appointee left blank. In making the motion to
adopt the resolution the maker of the motion can fill in the name of the nominee.
The City Attorney has advised if the Council does proceed in adopting such a resolution while
Mayor Dorfman is still in office and presiding over the meeting she would be precluded by
statute from voting.
Should the Council make an appointment of an incumbent Councilmember to the role of Mayor
then the process of declaring a vacancy and subsequent appointment would follow as above.
60
Attachments:
Resolution appointing Mayor
Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
61
RESOLUTION NO. __99-45_________
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING _________________________
TO A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF MAYOR,
EFFECTIVE __________________________________ PURSUANT
TO CHARTER SECTION 2.05
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park Mayor Gail Dorfman has resigned leaving a vacancy in the office of
Mayor expiring January 3, 2000; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the City Charter the Council has declared a vacancy
effective April 6, 1999 for the remainder of the term; and
WHEREAS, the Council may appoint an eligible person to fill that vacancy during the interim
before the duly elected successor assumes office; and
WHEREAS, the Council has carefully reviewed the qualifications of candidates for the interim
appointment and has considered the welfare of the City as a whole,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that ____________
___________________ is hereby appointed Mayor effective ______________ and shall serve in
that capacity until the duly elected successor assumes the office on January 4, 2000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
62
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8g*
Meeting of April 5, 1999
8g* Traffic Study No. 541: Fire Lane Designation in Victoria Ponds Development.
This report considers the designation of fire lanes in the Victoria Ponds
Development in accordance with the attached plan.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
installation of “No Parking Fire Lane” signs in accordance with
the attached plan.
Background: The City’s Fire Department submitted the attached site plan of the Victoria Ponds
Development with the requested fire lane designations noted. The proposed fire lanes and the
restriction of parking was agreed to by the Developer at the time of the PUD approval. The
proposed areas are as follows:
1. Along both sides of Victoria Circle, Victoria Curve, and Victoria Lane except for
designated off-street parking area.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the City Council:
*1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of “No
Parking - Fire Lane” signage may be used.
2. Deny the request.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Plan
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore, Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
63
RESOLUTION NO. ___99-46_______
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PLACEMENT OF
“NO PARKING - FIRE LANE” SIGNS IN THE
VICTORIA PONDS DEVELOPMENT ON
VICTORIA CIRCLE, VICTORIA CURVE, AND VICTORIA LANE
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 541
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has caused a traffic
analysis to be made on certain public or private property within the City with respect to fire lane
designation; and
WHEREAS, the results as analyzed by the Engineering Division and the Fire Department of
the City indicate that the following limitations on parking are required on the hereinafter described
area in order that the travel of fire equipment may not be interfered with and that the access to fire
hydrants to buildings may not be blocked off; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1084, adopted November 17, 1969 by the City Council,
provides for the installation of traffic control signs when and as required by resolution of the City
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the following areas in the Victoria Ponds Development are hereby designated as fire lanes:
1. Along both sides of Victoria Circle, Victoria Curve, and Victoria Lane except for
designated off-street parking area.
The Director of Public Works and the owner of the property involved are hereby authorized and
directed to install fire lane signs of approved type setting limits on parking as required by ordinance.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
64
Item 9a
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Julie DiGravina, Dennis Morris, Michael Garelick,
Ken Gothberg, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 3, 1999 and
Minutes of Joint Planning and Park & Recreation Meeting of February 3, 1999
Mr. Gothberg moved approval of Minutes of February 3, 1999 and Minutes of Joint
Planning and Park & Recreation Meeting of February 3, 1999 and the motion passed on a
vote of 4-0-1 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting in favor and DiGravina
abstaining.
3. Public Hearings: None
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business
i. Park Commons Update
Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, briefly reviewed the charrette concept
plan for Park Commons West and updated the Commission on four traffic
circulation alternatives for the area.
Mr. Gothberg favored Alternative D first and Alternative B second
because if the City is really going to have a Town Center where people
stop and do some leisurely shopping in a park like atmosphere, the more
we can divert unnecessary traffic the better it will be. He stated it is
important to have good pedestrian crossings and bike trails along all the
65
roads that are going through that area and noted Australia as an example
for a country that adheres to stopping at pedestrian crossings.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that Alternatives B and D are the primary alternatives
that are still subject to the greatest amount of discussion. She said the
final proposal will most likely be something close to one of these
alternatives. She briefly updated the Commission on the issues being
raised and addressed for the Norwest Bank site at Quentin and Excelsior
Boulevard.
Ms. Velick stated she is concerned that the current traffic circulation is
unfriendly and raised the issue of sidewalks. She asked which one of the
alternatives would make it a more comprehensive area for pedestrians.
With regard to the current difficulty for pedestrians crossing Excelsior
Boulevard, Ms. Jeremiah stated that part of the answer is to try to get more
lighted intersections in the area and longer pedestrian signal times. Staff is
working with the County on this. She noted there would be the addition of
sidewalks on every road way connection, except the west side of Park
Center Boulevard, to facilitate pedestrians.
Ms. Erickson noted the area was included as part of the recent Trail &
Sidewalk study that was conducted.
Chair Morris asked if consideration was given to creating one-way
routings in terms of funneling in order to channel traffic into certain areas
rather than allowing a free circulation.
Ms. Jeremiah stated there was some discussion about this, but the general
attitude is to avoid one-way streets unless it is absolutely necessary
because it tends to be confusing and less convenient, but this could be
revisited. She noted that initially, there was some anticipation that the
circulation would be one-way around the town green, but the County was
not supportive of the plan.
Mr. Garelick asked if staff had received any additional feedback from the
neighborhood regarding the Norwest Bank issue.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is some additional information that will be
presented at a neighborhood meeting, but she does not know what the
reaction to the new information will be.
Chair Morris asked if the Park Commons West circulatory and road
system could go forward without further development of the Town Center
portion.
66
Ms. Jeremiah stated it is capable of going forward, but Council has
indicated that Phase I near the town green is top priority. Ms. Jeremiah
explained how a developer was chosen for the Phase I area and described
the proposed concept plan for Park Commons East as submitted by Avalon
Bay.
Mr. Gothberg found it hard to believe that the developer really worked
with anyone that was involved with the charrette concept plan. He stated
that this plan is so far removed from what the original goal of the City was
that it is ridiculous. He thinks the City made a real mistake in not going
out to several developers and requesting proposals becasue this is going to
slow down the process.
Ms. Velick stated she is a little disappointed. She reviewed the vision at
the time of the charrette and how the Planning Commission had talked
about this being the focal point. She believes, with time and discussion,
this could be molded and changed.
Mr. Garelick stated he is concerned that if this is going to be the focal
point or prototype for the community that this area needs to have more
housing that is not rental housing so we can make it an established
neighborhood where people really want to go. This would raise the value
of the south side of Excelsior Boulevard, similar to what they have in
Edina off France Avenue.
Mr. Gothberg said he sees an issue with the number of streets and
connections of streets and stated that if you want to have people walk
around, you need to have stop signs at every intersection to make it safe.
He believes the pedestrians will be cutting across streets everywhere with
this design.
Mr. Garelick said he does not want the unsafe feeling that now exists in
the the McDonald’s and TimberLodge area off Excelsior Boulevard.
Chair Morris stated that the concept of connecting the north and south side
of Excelsior Boulevard needs to be examined further and, because of the
nature of the road, it is better to work on safe pedestrian crossings rather
than to encourage a retail/residential merging of the two sides. He does
not believe it is feasible to expect people to walk from the theater to the
parking garages using Excelsior Boulevard as the medium. He stated that
the north side of Excelsior needs to be looked at as a retail frontage and
the south side could develop on its own. He noted that the exchange of
pedestrians and vehicles from one side of the street to the other is
prohibitive and the concept of the parking garages facing on Excelsior
67
Boulevard is a loss of good frontage. He is really disappointed in the City
getting back into these large retail centers because he does not believe
there is a driving market for them. The developer is creating these entities
that may never be built and, if they are, it may be for a 2-5 year period and
then they are gone again and you have vacant retail space.
Chair Morris said that this plan does not appeal to him in the manner that
has been talked about with the flow of traffic from Excelsior Boulevard
into the park, Rather than create a flow north and south, this plan pushes
everything to the middle stretching it east to west. He thought the four
story structures would create canyons instead of a street level feeling and
would channel the green space into the narrow confines. He asked for
clarification of the structures on the green space in the middle of the
streets.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the concept was to have some little cafes on the
green in this area, but the width and limited space may not make this
feasible.
Mr. Gothberg stated that the group that would give this plan an “A” would
be those who thought about how to maximize monetary value in the hands
of developers and contractors who build the buildings and streets.
Chair Morris concurred with Mr. Garelick that rental is not the desired
urban design the Commission is looking for. The feeling that is desired is
a community with home owners and pride in the neighborhood.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this concept is in opposition to the market study
that found that most retailers wanted the visibility of Excelsior Boulevard.
ii. Request of Planning Commission to initiate changes to MX Ordinance
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report and recommended that the Planning
Commission initiate amendments to the “M-X” Ordinance and direct staff
to prepare a full analysis for consideration at a future meeting.
Chair Morris stated that since there are presently no standards for
architecture variety or class of materials in the current ordinance, he
desires to see the “M-X” use address this and give the City authority to
regulate architecture and change the type of materials to achieve a higher
standard for development.
It was moved by Mr. Garelick to initiate amendments to the “M-X”
Ordinance and direct staff to prepare a full analysis for consideration at a
68
future meeting. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with DiGravina,
Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, and Velick voting in favor.
iii. Comprehensive Plan Chapters
Ms. Erickson presented a brief overview of the purpose and content of
each chapter.
• M - Surface Water Management
Chair Morris asked if a Shoreline Management Ordinance would be a part
of this chapter.
Ms. Erickson stated that this would not be adopted until the City is
mandated to do so.
Mr. Gothberg noted the polices for wetlands and asked why there is
deferment to watershed districts.
Ms. Erickson stated that the City does not not have staff with the
qualifications to identify wetland, therefore, the City has chosen to follow
options to defer to the Watershed Districts who already have technical
staff.
• D - Housing
Mr. Garelick asked how reasonable it is to have a goal of future housing
growth of 2400 new housing units by the year 2020.
Ms. Erickson explained several areas for consideration of multi-housing
units that would comprise the majority of the future growth.
• Q - Intergovernmental Coordination
Mr. Gothberg stated he believes that St. Louis Park sets an example in this
area. All of the groups mentioned are also working very closely with the
business community and the major health delivery systems that are located
here.
Chair Morris noted the reciprocal park programs that the City is involved
with. Ms. DiGravina commented on the strong partnership that the School
District, City and Community Education have with one another.
Ms. Velick asked if there is any consideration of consolidating the City’s
School Districts. The Commission briefly discussed this possibility. One
69
of the City’s strengths is the fact that the City and school district have the
same boundaries.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - February 16, 1999
B. Planning Commission consideration of variances associated with Conditional Use
Permits
Ms. Jeremiah presented a brief update. Chair Morris asked if the Planning
Department had a representative on BOZA. Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is not a
representative from Planning, but currently the Zoning Administrator is the staff
liaison to BOZA. The Zoning Administrator is currently part of the Inspections
Department Staff.
7. Miscellaneous
A. Real Estate Trends - Presentation by Michael Garelick
Mr. Garelick presented a Neighborhood Snap-Shot of St. Louis Park .
He stated that St. Louis Park is a desirable community to live in because of it’s
proximity to downtown Minneapolis, good neighborhoods, good schools and
higher end resale value. He said he is concerned with the lack of additional
move-up housing, small lots with no trees, and the fact that many people are
moving from St. Louis Park into the other suburbs for fear of cultural diversity
and stated that this perception is a problem.
He described the following as current housing trends in St. Louis Park.
• average sale price of single family home has increased
• high volume of single family home sales
• high end housing is less expensive than other suburbs
• low end housing is more expensive than other suburbs
• lack of town homes for sale
• lack of move-up housing
• houses on the market are selling quickly
• houses are selling for 98-99% of what the seller is asking
• average occupancy of single family homes has changed
from 5-7 years to 3-5 years
Mr. Garelick reviewed housing and community characteristics of the City. He
believes if the City wants to remain a viable community there needs to be an
increase in move-up housing in the form of townhouses that have area
playgrounds with retail and recreation that are more of a type of closed
community.
70
Ms. DiGravina asked Mr. Garelick about the concern he noted related to people
moving because of a fear of cultural diversity. Is there any flip side to this where
he is seeing that some people are choosing to move here because of the diversity?
Why are some choosing to move here when there are those leaving and we
having very positive prices for our houses?
Mr. Garelick said they are afraid of something they perceive. Change scares
people and if they have been residents here for a long time and see someone with
a different accent or a different color skin, they think properties are going down in
value. He said he sees the diversity as a strength, where we will actually be a
stronger City. Some poeople cannot deal with the diversity.
Mr. Garelick stated there is a need for construction of more single family homes,
promoting of neighborhoods, modification of existing homes, need to set
initiatives to attract young families and when larger homes are sold attempting to
keep the people in one-level townhouses. He believes that St. Louis Park is losing
the simple support of realtors and believes that an annual open house for realtors,
that was held in the past and was helpful, could be of benefit again.
The Commission recommended forwarding a copy of the Neighborhood Snap-
Shot information to City Council members.
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
71
Item #9b
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING OF PARK AND RECREATION AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 3, 1999 --5:30 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM - 1ST FLOOR
CITY HALL
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg,
Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian , Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Carver
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meriwether Felt, James Martin , Sue Santa,
Christine Stephansen, Dawn Wright, Jeff Davidman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete Chubb, Ashley Tomoson
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Bob Close, Andrew Caddock, Mike McGarvey
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus, Cindy Walsh,
Jenny Buskey, Tom Harmening, Clint Pires
1. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 2, 1998
Jeff Davidman moved approval of the minutes of December 2, 1998 and the motion
passed unanimously.
3. Trail and Sidewalk Study - Presentation by Close Landscape Architects
Bob Close, Consultant reviewed the process of developing a comprehensive City wide
system of trails and sidewalks that provides local and regional activity, improves safety
and accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. He presented an updated
map of the proposed concept plan and highlighted the major connections which are
designed to connect areas of synergy.
Andrew Caddock, Consultant briefly reviewed the city sidewalk plan and the
neighborhood sidewalk plan.
Mr. Close noted that that results of the study showed the importance of having sidewalks
near the schools and parks, how the existing sidewalk system is being used and the use of
72
a multi-use trail in areas where newer suburban street patterns exist (as opposed to the
more urban grid) . He pointed out on the priorities on the drawings (first priority is wide
line, second priority is narrow line, and 3rd priority is no line). He stated that the City’s
ultimate goal is to provide sidewalks throughout the community.
Mike McGarvey, SRF Consultant briefly reviewed the four different forms of trails and
bikeways which include a regional trail, dedicated bike lane, “share the road”, bike trails,
and off-street multi use trails.
Ms. Bissonnette asked what form would be used for Minnetonka Boulevard.
Mr. McGarvey stated that Minnetonka Boulevard and Louisiana Avenue are identified in
the Hennepin County bike plan as dedicated bike routes which would seek fully striped
dedicated bike lanes as they upgrade the facility which would include a bike lane.
Mr. Close reviewed upgrades to pedestiran crossings, including improved striping, center
medians and signal time for at-grade crossings and relocation or addition of pedestrian
bridges in some locations.
Ms. Felt asked if the area at Highway 7 and Louisiana has been considered for further
study by engineers to find alternatives for safe bike and pedestrian crossings. A
discussion followed about appropriateness of bridges and other alternatives.
The Joint Commission discussed urban sprawl, traffic increases and the possible use of
railroad bridge as crossing point in the future.
Mr. McGarvey reviewed the composite map which highlights the priorities identified by
Consultants, City Staff, and the Task Force which include a connection at Woodale
Avenue across Highway 7, and connections to other communities (28th to chain of lakes,
Woodale and Brookside connection to south, and Minnetonka Boulevard west to 169).
Mr. McGarvey also explained other connections to the existing regional trails to the West
and north to Golden Valley.
Mr. Timian raised the issue of establishing a connection for Jr. High Students to the Jr.
High School. The Joint Commission discussed the existing system and feasibility of
establishing bike route, parking on Cedar Lake Road, and recommended researching
further design for that area.
The Joint Commission believed crossing at Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue is
dangerous and should be considered a priority since new development in that area has
increased traffic. It was suggested that flashing lights be installed to notify drivers that
there is a pedestrian crossing ahead.
Bob Close reviewed the existing policy for sidewalk and trail maintenance and stated that
policy is to be set by the City Council related to maintenance of trails and sidewalks.
73
Mr. Timian asked if there is a time horizon on the first priority areas.
Mr. Close stated that this issue would continue to be discussed and that it was dependent
upon funding sources.
Ms. Stephansen asked how adjacent property owners would be notified of sidewalk
construction and policy changes.
Judie Erickson stated that a composite map would be printed in the Park Perspective and
Sun Sailor and presented at public meetings.
Mr. Harmening stated that the City Council is very community minded and that
neighborhood meetings would be held so citizens can voice their opinions and concerns
about a specific project.
Ms. Stephansen asked if property owners were assessed for sidewalk construction.
Tom Harmening stated that under current policy property owners would pay for the
sidewalk and indicated that the consultants have been asked for cost projections related to
this issue and this policy may or may not change.
The Joint Commission discussed the response of residents to future sidewalk construction
in their neighborhoods.
Mr. Gothberg recommended reviewing the trail and sidewalk plan with the School Board
for their input.
Mr. Harmening stated that the plan would be reviewed by the St. Louis Park Business
Council in March. He noted that one of the reasons for the planning process is to update
the Comprehensive Plan, but also for other City departments to use as a working
document to accomplish goals of the City.
The Joint Commission briefly discussed the funding of the Hutchinson Spur connection
to the regional trail system, evaluation or study of volume of trail traffic in past and
future, and concern about maintenance and improvement of existing structures.
4. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
74
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
75
Item # 9c
March 19, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
5 AND 10 EQUIPMENT PARTS 100.96
ADAMS TRADE PRESS INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 38.00
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 438.26
ADVISORS MARKETING GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 312.32
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 46.25
ALL FIRE TEST INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 507.90
AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HIS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00
ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 970.41
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.50
BEACON BALLFIELDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.22
BECHT, DICK DEPOSITS PAYABLE 50.00
BENTZ-THOMPSON-RIETOW INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 860.00
BOHN WELDING COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.24
BOOMER, KRISTIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.00
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS (137.02)
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,455.50
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 65.77
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS (26.63)
CITY OF EDINA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,705.56
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EQUIPMENT PARTS 7,000.00
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 260.00
CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 96.32
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER GENERAL SUPPLIES 52.30
D'AMICO CATERING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00
DAILEY, ANNE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 280.53
DELEGARD TOOL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (65.54)
DILORENZO, KIRK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 482.00
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
DOODY, MICHAEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN OFFICE SUPPLIES 42.34
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,593.45
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.15
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,968.39
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74.95
FIALA, ANGELA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
FIRST CHOICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 998.42
FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,312.50
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC SMALL TOOLS 329.86
G & K SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS 26.54
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 120.75
76
GRANOWSKI, MARK ADULT ATHLETICS 560.00
GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
HACH COMPANY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 387.46
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.98
HAYES, DAN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.00
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 112.56
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 967.02
HOME DEPOT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 247.42
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.90
HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 9.56
HOPKINS COMMUNITY EDUCATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 207.00
HRAI TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 50.00
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 17,845.37
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 400.61
KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43
KNOLLWOOD LIQUOR GENERAL SUPPLIES 122.48
KOCH CRIME INSTITUTE GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.00
L M C INSURANCE TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,082.72
LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16
LASER TECHNOLOGY INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 203.25
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 85.00
LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 179.00
MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 55.64
MC ELLIOGOTT DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.00
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.43
METROCALL TELEPHONE 218.46
MILL CITY PLYWOOD CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 258.72
MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 3,000.00
MINNEAPOLIS EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 81.77
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 20,255.17
MN CONSERVATION VOLUNTEER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION LICENSES/TAXES 58.00
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY LICENSES/TAXES 2,720.00
MNA TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 166.00
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 44.66
N E P CORPORATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 16.58
NORDSTROM ESTATE, ROBERT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.05
NRG DISTRIBUTORS EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.98
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 58,340.63
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 130.86
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.92
PARTNERS IN PERSONNEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 94.50
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 447.90
PERON-WILDES, A J DEPOSITS PAYABLE 50.00
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 167.05
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 806.09
RADIATOR WAREHOUSE WEST EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 25.00
77
RENNER & SONS INC, E H EQUIPMENT PARTS 50.61
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO SMALL TOOLS 211.73
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS (57.48)
ROBERTSON, GORDY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.00
ROCKWOOD CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 142.40
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 61.10
SCHEAR, MORRIS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.92
SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
SERCO LABORATORIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.00
SEXTON, JIM DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.00
SLP ECONOMIC DEV AUTHORITY VENDORS & OTHERS 127,298.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 780.16
STANDARD PLUMBING EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.09
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.26
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 36.90
SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 4.26
SUMITOMO BANK LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,356.20
SUN NEWSPAPERS OTHER ADVERTISING 334.80
SWANSON HARDWARE CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 150.61
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 29.79
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 594.64
THAYER, KIT DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.00
TWIN CITIES SERVICE CENTER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,373.25
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.48
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,530.27
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 422.22
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 569.12
UNITOG RENTAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.50
VAN PUTTEN, TIM INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 62.85
VOELKER, STACY M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 51.00
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 452.48
WHITE, PERRY GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.00
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE EQUIPMENT PARTS 161.61
WOLDORSKY, RICHARD DEPOSITS PAYABLE 25.00
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES (7.67)
ZEP MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT PARTS 268.80
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 125.15
ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 503.75
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 41.02
322,780.84
March 26, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 705.52
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 910.00
78
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 137.58
ANDERSON, ALBERT SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 115.00
ANDERSON, BERNIECE F SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 107.50
ANDERSON, DELORES A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 116.75
ANDERSON, MARY M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
ANDREASEN, RUBY A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
ANOKA-HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 35.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,026.31
BAIN, MARY M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BAKER, RUTH S SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 111.50
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.88
BENSON, MAXENE L SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
BERTHENE, SANDRA MAY A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 122.00
BIERMA, SHIRLEY P SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 156.37
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS (137.02)
BRATLAND, ROSEMOND L SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 58.50
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWN, JOSEPH P SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
BURROWS, KELLI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,332.35
BUSINESS & LEGAL REPTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 534.95
BYRD, KATHLEEN M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 103.21
CARLSON, DONALD SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
CARSON, BRYAN M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 69.89
CATO, KAREN J SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 225.25
CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.26
CITY OF EAGAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 36.00
CLOSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 938.00
CONDON, DORA E SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
CORCORAN, MARGARET A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 111.50
CORNELIUS, JANE M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,171.00
DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 71.82
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.20
DARTEK COMPUTER SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.93
DAS MANUFACTURING INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 726.26
DAYTON'S/TARGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 170.36
DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 299.45
DEANE, BETTY ZIMMERMAN SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
DELEGARD TOOL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (65.54)
DISRUD, EMMA B SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
DUNLAP, REG MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 50.38
EAGLE POINT OFFICE SUPPLIES 4,015.00
ELVERUM, KERSTEN DEPOSITS PAYABLE 55.28
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 481.50
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 132.54
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.14
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00
79
EVERS, VIRGINIA A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
EXCELL CELLULAR GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.90
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FINE WOODWORKING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 54.00
FLATTEN, ANNA J SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
FLUGAUR, FLORENCE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
GALBRAITH, ARDIS V SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 22,187.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 297.00
GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 255.00
GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 129.17
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 66.51
GROVE, HENRY R SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 203.38
GUSEK, MARY V SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 84.50
GUSTAVE A LARSON COMPANY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 91.47
HAMILTON, JAYME GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.92
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,041.36
HAZELWOOD, BRADLEY OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 2,100.00
HELD, OREL D SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 102.63
HENNEPIN CO ASSESSOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 878.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 41.80
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,694.98
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.66
HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 39.94
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.29
HOPKINS COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEPOSITS PAYABLE 344.32
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,472.90
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 10,453.66
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,029.56
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 162.16
INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 188.60
INTEGRITY MUTUAL INSURANCE BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 18.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 516.53
J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 462.80
JAMES, VIOLET MARIE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
JOHNSON, MILDRED F SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
JONES, JEANNE M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
KARNITZ, ESTHER L SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 111.50
KARNITZ, MARVIN E SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 111.50
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 41.93
KNOX LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 201.38
KOBE, LOGENE R SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 105.88
KOHAN, GEORGE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
KOLBERG, EDMERE G SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 101.00
KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41
L M C INSURANCE TRUST MOTOR VEHICLE PROP DAMAGE INS 1,043.00
LAIDERMAN, NESSA L SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 116.75
LAIRD, MARILYN W SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
80
LAKELAND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 411.69
LAPRAY, JAMI A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 102.63
LASER QUIPT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 389.04
LAWLESS, AGNES F SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
LAWRENCE, BARRY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 278.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 31.32
LINDER, JUANITA M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
LITSEY, DAVID M. SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 115.00
LITSEY, MEREDITH G SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
LORMAN PUBLISHING CO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 537.00
MAIER, JOHN A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 118.50
MARTENS, BRENDA R SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 208.25
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 156.30
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 248,722.12
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 277.07
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 246.06
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 1,129.50
MINNEAPOLIS AQUATENNIAL UNREALIZED REVENUE 600.00
MINNEGASCO BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 1.83
MINNESOTA DNR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 45.00
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 562.04
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 480.53
MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 240.00
MORGAN, PAM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 69.02
MORRIS, GLORIA M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
MOXHAM, FLORENCE F SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
MUSZYNSKI, MARY ANN SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
N A F A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00
NELSON, DOROTHY C SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 115.00
NEOPOST RENTAL EQUIPMENT 333.00
NERHEIM, CONSTANCE J SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
NEUMANNS ENTERPRISE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,965.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 955.59
NUTTING, AVONNE B SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 106.57
OLSON, FERDA C SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00
OTTERBLAD, PATRICIA D SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
PAPA JOHNS PIZZA CONCESSION SUPPLIES 57.48
PETERS, DIANE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 30.96
PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C GENERAL SUPPLIES 606.45
PETES WATER & SEWER INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 400.00
PLASTICS TO GO WAREHOUSE GENERAL SUPPLIES 807.70
POOLE, NILA F SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
PRINT GRAPHICS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 514.00
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 81.74
RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 39.35
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 60.50
RHEINHART, ETHEL M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 104.25
81
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS (57.48)
ROCKWOOD CORPORATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 43.30
ROGALLA, ANGELA SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
ROLAND, DOLORES A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 115.00
ROSS, LOUISE W SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 111.50
RYKS, MARGERY A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 115.00
SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 726.66
SAMS CLUB #6318 GENERAL SUPPLIES 234.66
SCHOEN, LOUIS S SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
SEARS & ROEBUCK CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.54
SEDGWICK JAMES OF MINN INC PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 420.00
SLP SCHOOL DIST 283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,500.00
SLP SOCCER ASSOCIATION YOUTH ATHLETICS 13.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,660.79
ST LOUIS PARK HISTORICAL SOCIE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 71.33
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.39
STALLING, GERALDINE H SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 217.36
STROMSETH, KATHERINE A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 115.00
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 36.90
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 613.12
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 468.39
TAUTGES REDPATH & CO LTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,241.75
TNC INDUSTRIES INC HEATING 108.25
TORETSKY, MARK R SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 42.50
U S BANK FISCAL AGENT FEES 6,130.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 520.00
UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 595.00
VESTEL, MIKE ADULT ATHLETICS 80.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 786.83
WAGENER, LORI SKATING LESSONS 100.00
WARDELL, GARY R SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 35.63
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 675.36
WELCH, RITA M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 97.50
WELTER, DOROTHY M SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
WEST GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.61
WOLFE, STEPHEN D MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 201.51
WOOLSEY, JOYCE E SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 94.25
WSB ASSOCIATES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 11,156.26
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES (7.67)
ZIP PRINTING UNREALIZED REVENUE 31.95
377,442.29
April 2, 1999
82
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA-LICENSE DIVISION LICENSES/TAXES 1,267.63
ABLE COURIER GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.80
ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.69
AILES, KEN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 127.40
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 161.00
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.90
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,066.32
ASIAN PAGES OTHER ADVERTISING 261.00
ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 325.00
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 61.83
B & J TREE FARMS FORFEITURES/PENALTIES 100.00
BEEKS PIZZA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 71.55
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 111.96
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 272.08
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,243.92
BURROWS, KELLI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 42.60
CALGON CARBON CORPORATION CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 5,762.10
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 570.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 220.25
CONN, KEVIN L STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 602.10
CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,040.81
DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 231.35
DELEGARD TOOL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (65.54)
DENNYS ROLL-OFF SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 330.00
DILORENZO, KIRK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 423.09
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DREIER, LORI A STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 715.00
E GROUP INC UNREALIZED REVENUE 71.58
EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 210.00
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.83
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FINKELSTEIN, PHIL DOG 12.50
FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN PRINTING & PUBLISHING 127.84
FOUR SEASONS TRAVEL INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 836.00
FOWLER ELECTRIC COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 9.44
FRED PRYOR SEMINARS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 195.00
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 42.59
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 2,520.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,538.76
GILL, ROBERT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 249.00
GLAPA, SHAWN STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 341.00
GORSKI, MARY LOU TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 270.00
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 152.72
HAZELWOOD, BRADLEY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 980.00
HENN CO PUBLIC RECORDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.50
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PRINTING & PUBLISHING 575.00
83
HODGDON, GREGG STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,049.98
HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 10.42
I/O SOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,605.00
ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 27.96
IMAGE WORKS DEPOSITS PAYABLE 354.11
IMC SALT INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,534.74
INSIGHT NEWS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 612.68
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 221.95
INTNL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 325.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 396.76
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.91
JRK INC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 1,485.67
JUSTUS LUMBER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 16.82
K K FIVE CORP BUILDING 1,808.06
KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.80
KRUGE-AIR INC. BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 173.60
L M C INSURANCE TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,039.75
LAUER, DAN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 70.20
LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.35
LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 27.24
LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE/PAINT PLUS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 86.37
M A APPAREL INC SMALL TOOLS 207.30
M/A ASSOCIATES INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 267.43
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 3,853.75
MARQUARDT, DAVID TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 982.22
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 1,552.88
MC BRIDE, KATHLEEN MEETING EXPENSE 121.37
MC DONELL, MARTHA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 26.00
MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 151.99
METROCALL TELEPHONE 83.53
MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO IN EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,015.23
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.68
MILLER, CAROL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 62.08
MINNESOTA WOMEN'S PRESS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 442.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE 115.50
MPLS LOCK & KEY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 51.64
MRPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 45.00
N R V M A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.25
NATL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 125.00
NORWEST BANK MN-NATIONAL ASSOC INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 1,205.00
NRG DISTRIBUTORS GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 185.82
PALMS BAKERY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 26.40
PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT SALES I GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.55
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (120.00)
PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 94.61
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 8.87
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (74.89)
84
RAGAN TIRE CO, BRAD EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 107.37
RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 45.34
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,960.97
RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS (57.48)
RUTTGERS BAY LAKE LODGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 382.12
SCHWAAB INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.20
SMOLIAK, BARRY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
SNYDER, DEBORAH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 760.50
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 124.17
ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 184.32
ST LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGRA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20,000.00
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE SMALL TOOLS 7.35
ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS OTHER ADVERTISING 887.90
STATE TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 120.00
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 343.46
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 54.81
SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 607.41
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 198.90
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR MOTOR FUELS 33.63
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 371.88
TESSMAN SEED INC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 878.63
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 5,736.53
TWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 55.73
TWIN CITY SEED CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 1,341.90
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE 1.80
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00
VAITH, SANDRA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 512.04
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,719.45
VOGT HEATING & A/C GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.51
WELTER HEATING COMPANY, RAY N HEATING 70.00
WES BUE VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHY SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 426.00
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 205.47
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES (7.67)
ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 218.25
99,762.27
April 2, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,547.36
ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 81,935.50
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 406.00
85
FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,714.65
GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,862.00
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,619.65
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 491.96
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 24,717.58
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,290.00
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,782.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
M C MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 61,874.45
MINN COMM OF REVENUE SEASON TICKETS 11,345.00
MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 463.85
MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,896.00
MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INSURANC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,283.42
MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 422.47
MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,280.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 191,342.71
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 91,447.02
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,673.21
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 16,602.71
SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS-LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04
SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 59,481.21
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 347.35
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,629.37
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 13,046.92
WCRA WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 5,319.57
WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP INSURA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 68.12
595,050.12
April 2, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 3,083.95
April 2, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 98.38
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 660.04
PAULOUSKI, WADE INJURY PAY 880.04
1,638.46
86
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a
Meeting of April 5, 1999
11a. First Meeting of the City Board of Equalization
The City is required by state statute to conduct a City Board of Equalization
meeting to hear real estate valuation appeals.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Board of Equalization conduct
its initial meeting on Monday, April 19, 1999 at 7:15 p.m.
Background:
The omnibus tax bill passed in 1987 moved all statutory assessment dates 45 days earlier in
the year. This date change requires a City Board of Equalization meeting in April each
year.
In 1998 the initial Board meeting was held on April 20, 1998 for the purpose of organizing
and scheduling subsequent meetings; the next meeting was held on Monday, April 27,
1998 at 5:00 p.m. (in the third floor conference room) and 10 cases were heard. Each
taxpayer was scheduled for a 10-minute hearing. The Board must conclude its business
within 20 days of the initial hearing.
The purpose of the City Board of Equalization is to review the property values established
by the City Assessor which are being contested by taxpayers. The review of individual
appeals is by appointment only. Each taxpayer who appeals is sent a form to complete that
outlines his/her complaint and to state his/her estimate of the property’s market value. As
the Board Members review these appeals, they concern themselves specifically with
property values. Judgments about whether or not an individual taxpayer’s property taxes
are too high are not questions to be addressed by the Board.
Each taxpayer who appears at the City Board of Equalization can also appear at the County
Board of Equalization hearings which begin on June 14, 1999. The County Board of
Equalization meets for 10 days. If real estate taxes are less that $5,000, the property owner
can appeal the property valuation to the Small Claims Court, but cannot appear before the
State Board of Equalization. The property owner must appear before the City and County
Boards of Equalization to reserve the right to appeal the valuation before the Small Claims
Court.
Attached are the 1999 Guidelines for Conduct of Meetings and a sample of the minutes
from last year’s initial Board meeting. At the initial meeting a list of property owners who
wish to appear before the Board will be supplied by the City Assessor to the members of
the Board of Equalization.
87
Attachments: Minutes of the 1998 Board of Equalization (first meeting)
Guidelines to Conduct the Board of Equalization
St. Louis Park neighborhood map and 1999 of valuation changes
Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager