HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/04/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
7:00 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
7:25 p.m. – Board of Equalization
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 19, 1999
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
a. Swearing in Ceremony
b. Arbor Day Proclamation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of April 5, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. Study Session meeting of March 8, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
c. Study Session meeting of March 22, 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
2
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
6a. Amendment to Special Permit to construct a 45-unit apartment building in the
R-4 Zoning District
Case No. 99-5-CUP
1351 Hampshire Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to open the public hearing. Motion to continue the public
hearing until May 3, 1999.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Election of Mayor Pro-tem
Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem as required by State Statute section 412.121
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution appointing a Mayor Pro-tem
8b. 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program Awards
The neighborhood grant review committee and the City Council have reviewed the
neighborhood grant applications. The City Council is now being asked to adopt a
resolution to approve funding of the applications.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1999 neighborhood
revitalization grant program applications and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreements with the
neighborhoods
8c. 1999 Sojourner Contract
Renewal of existing contract with Sojourner Project, inc., to perform advocacy
services for victims of domestic violence.
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute contract with
Sojourner Project, Inc. in the amount of $39,159.00 for advocacy
services for the period January 1 through December 31, 1999.
3
The contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
4
8d. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the “R-C” Zoning District .
Case No. 99-4-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve Second Reading, adopt an ordinance to
amend the “R-C” Multiple Family Residential District, approve
Summary Ordinance, and authorize publication.
8e. Application for 3.2% Malt Liquor off-sale license for Supervalu, Inc. dba Cub
Foods at 3620 Texas Avenue South
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the application for 3.2% Malt Liquor off-sale
license for Supervalu, Inc. dba Cub Foods.
8f.* Traffic Study No. 542: No parking on the south side of 2230 Highway 100
(former 5 Star Auto, now Midland Glass).
This report considers “No Parking Anytime” on the south side of 2230 Highway
100.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to accept this report for filing and adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the parking restrictions on the south side
of 2230 Highway 100.
8g*. Resolution approving an additional allocation to the St. Louis Park
Emergency Repair Program funded through the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant
Council is asked to approve an additional allocation of $13,500 in order to
complete the emergency housing needs of clients approved through the 1998
Emergency Repair Program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution authorizing the allocation of
$13,500 in Community Development Block Grant Funds to the
St. Louis Park Emergency Repair Program administered by
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
*8h. Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin
County
The City is requesting, through Council resolution, to enter into a license agreement
with Hennepin County for the purpose of using the portion of the County’s
digitized database that enables production of maps using the City’s Geographical
5
Information System (GIS).
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution entering into conditional use
license agreement with Hennepin County for use of Electronic
Proprietary Database
*8i. Request for a 60-day extension to record final plat for Excelsior Townhomes
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 99-30,
granting 60 day extension for filing of final plat
*8j. 1999 Westwood Hills Nature Center Native Plant Restoration along the
Wildflower Trail
This report considers the acceptance of matching MN DNR grant funds in the
amount of $1,500 to continue with native plant restoration along the Wildflower
Trail at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Recommen
ded Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the receipt of
funds.
*8k. 1999 Boardwalk Improvements
This report accepts the bids for the construction of boardwalk improvements at
Westwood Nature Center, awards the project to the lowest bidder and authorizes
the construction of the boardwalk.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve attached Resolution, which designates
Bridgco Manufacturing, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and
authorizes the execution of a contract for the 1999 boardwalk
construction project not to exceed a cost of $102,500.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Housing Authority Minutes of March 10, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*b. Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*c. Parks and Rec Commission Minutes of February 3, 1999
6
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*d. Vendor Claims 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. Contract with West Suburban Mediation Center
Contract for mediation services with outside service provider
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a one-year
contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for
mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public
education services.
11b.* 1999 Major Equipment Purchases
This report considers authorizing the replacement of mowing unit #9120, a Toro
580D, during 1999. The City Charter and State Statute require all purchases and
contracts in excess of $25,000 be approved by the City Council.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution which accepts this report
and authorizes staff to replace unit #9120 in 1999.
*11c. Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Grant
The City has been awarded a grant from the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention
Program to address the problem of auto theft. The State requires the City Council
to adopt a resolution approving the grant agreement before the grant will be
processed. No matching funds are required.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt resolution approving grant agreement between the
Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program and the City of St.
Louis Park and authorize the City Manager and Chief of Police
to execute this agreement.
7
*11d. Bid Tabulation: 1999 Contract Sealcoating
This reports considers awarding a contract for the sealcoating of designated
bituminous streets within the City of St. Louis Park to Asphalt Surface
Technologies Corporation.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation the
lowest responsible bidder for the construction of bituminous
sealcoating and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in
the amount of $44,785.24.
11e.* Bid Tabulation: 1999 Street Work Supplies
This report considers the purchase of bituminous patching materials.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous
mixture No. 2340 and for bituminous cold patch material and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$52,250.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments – Partial
Contractor Contract No. Amount
M C Magney Construction 33-98 $ 33,829.58
Action: By consent approve and authorize payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
8
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 5, 1999
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro-tem Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Presentations
Marv Nelson thanked the City Council for providing the Emergency Medical Services training to
City employees. Mr. Nelson introduced Phyllis Nelson, a National Faculty Member of the
American Heart Association. Mrs. Nelson presented a Distinguished Service Award to Bob
Pastorek on behalf of the American Heart Association in recognition of the effective performance
of cardiopulmonary resuscitation which resulted in sustaining a life on August 7, 1998.
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger,
Ron Latz, Robert Young and Jim Brimeyer.
Mayor Gail Dorfman arrived at 8:00 p.m.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Superintendent
of Engineering (Mr. Moore); Finance Director (Ms. McBride); and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of March 15, 1999
With the following corrections, the minutes were approved as presented.
Insert last name of City Attorney, Andrea Poehler throughout document.
PAGE 9, 1st Paragraph, change judiciary to fiduciary
PAGE 8, 5th Paragraph, add name of resident who didn’t come to microphone: Lyn Wik.
PAGE 6, 3rd Paragraph, change to “Richard Wick, Frauenshuh, stated that sometimes traffic
studies are unfavorable to a developer’s proposal and projects are killed. This one is favorable,
yet is not being believed and 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.”
9
PAGE 6, 7th Paragraph, change exiting to existing
PAGE 6, 9th Paragraph, last sentence, change to “discretion, much more subject to review by a
district court based on whether or not your applying the condition set forth in your ordinance”
PAGE 11, 7th Paragraph, 2nd sentence, change to “people cling on to the worst number in the
worst case scenario” and then sentence midway - delete sentence that starts with “He indicated
....” and add “Some residents suggested that any traffic increase is a bad thing”.
PAGE 7, 2nd Paragraph, change to “asked if the bank had information on their anticipated
business increase at the new site”.
PAGE 6, 4th Paragraph, change to “asked about the timing of the project and the Public
Hearing”. ITEM 6b - delete “no action was required” and add “The application in the form that
has been received will not proceed”.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
b. Agenda
Mr. Meyer, City Manager recommended that Item 8a be changed to 6a and moved to a Public
Hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the “R-C” District and Add a
Definition of “Live-Work Units” to the Zoning Code
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and indicated that Staff and the
Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to the “R-C” District
and the new definition for “live-work units”.
Councilmember Jacobs was concerned about the noise issue and asked what mechanism was in
place to ensure that a business could not alter the exterior property or the general character of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the definition currently eliminates the potential for any industrial uses.
10
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that there are no limitations regarding traffic and parking
related to the “live-work units”. She also was concerned about the definition of “live-work
units” and believed there was a giant loop hole in the second line that stated “up to two
employees who may not be residents.” She would prefer the language be changed to workers
because its very easy to just have tons of people working there who aren’t legally employees.
Ms. Jeremiah stated she could change the language from employees to workers. She indicated
that aside from the actual definition of “live-work units”, there is also a section of the “R-C”
ordinance that includes further restrictions for that use in the district.
Councilmember Sanger asked how a travel agency would alter the character of the neighborhood
and how it would fit the definition of “live-work units”.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that a travel agency would be service use that would be permitted under this
language and the parking requirements were similar to retail and perhaps both retail and service
should be limited to 350 square feet in the “R-C” District.
Mayor pro-tem Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a
future date.
Councilmember Latz was concerned about how narrow the definition could become without
being too restrictive. He preferred that any ongoing traffic or parking problem be examined.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed the definition was too restrictive to accomplish the goals of
the City and believed more thought was needed about what the Council was trying to achieve.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that staff would be looking at future amendments to the “M-X” Districts to
allow “live-work units” and that staff would propose less restrictive limitations in the “M-X”
District.
Councilmember Nelson was opposed to this ordinance and was not prepared to see “live-work
units” anywhere but in the Park Commons area in the “M-X” District.
Councilmember Latz recommended that this ordinance be brought to a study session to discuss
how the goals of this ordinance would fit in with Park Commons “M-X” and “R-C” Districts.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that staff provide a map of the current “R-C” Districts.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to defer this
item to a study session.
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development suggested that council approve first
reading of this ordinance with the removal of “live-work units” language and allow staff to
handle “live-work units” as a separate matter.
11
Councilmember Brimeyer amended the motion to delete “live-work units”.
Councilmember Sanger proposed to delete the following conditions: d from Item 6 (Educational)
to be included when “M-X” Districts were being considered; c from Item 10 (Religious
Institutions); “public street” from condition g (Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall
be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street) from Item D1 (Multiple family
dwelling/cluster housing).
Councilmember Sanger asked why medical and dental offices were being eliminated as a
potential use.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the medical and dental offices would be considered in the mixed use
context, but not considered in a stand alone context in the “R-C” District.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed it was acceptable to waive conditions as long as a reference
was made to a redevelopment plan which would provide the flexibility to impose more creative
or innovative restrictions.
Councilmember Nelson agreed to Councilmember Brimeyer’s approach to keep the flexibility of
allowing deviations through a redevelopment plan and that there would most likely not be a
redevelopment plan with a religious or educational institution. He did not want to add private
streets to condition g of Item D1 (Multiple family dwelling/cluster housing).
Councilmember Jacobs agreed with Councilmembers Nelson and Brimeyer on the issue of the
waiver of the conditions, but would leave that provision in. He would also recommend deleting
“public street” from condition g from Item D1 (Multiple family dwelling/cluster housing).
Councilmember Young preferred to see sidewalks everywhere.
Councilmember Brimeyer amended his motion to delete “public street” from condition g of Item
D1 (Multiple family dwelling/cluster housing). Councilmember Jacobs was in favor of both
amendments to the original motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Moved to item 6a, above
8b. Resolution Providing For The Sale Of Up to $2,500,000 In General
Obligation Improvement Bonds
Resolution # 99-41
12
Ms. McBride, Finance Director, presented a staff report explained purpose for the resolution.
Councilmember Young asked staff to clarify parts of the resolution.
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve the
resolution. The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Resolution Authorizing Transfers from the Matured Special Assessment and
Permanent Improvement Revolving Funds to cover past capital projects cost
Resolution #99-42
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve the
resolution authorizing the transfers as of December 31, 1998. The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Purchase of Property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South by the City from the
Housing Authority
Resolution #99-43
Mr. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering, presented a staff report and reported that the
neighborhood meeting with staff had been positive.
Councilmember Latz believed that the proposed use of the property was the best solution and one
that the residents could agree upon.
Mr. Meyer explained that the City would like to preserve this property as a ponding area and that
the Housing Authority would be reimbursed for the cost of purchasing the property, demolition,
tree removal and other incidental costs. Funds would then be placed in the Home Renewal
Program. If Council decides not to proceed changes to the property to accommodate flood
runoff, the City could sell the lot for development purposes.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt the
attached resolution authorizing the purchase of the property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South
from the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Resolution accepting resignation and declaring vacancy in the Office of
Mayor
Resolution # 99-44
Mayor Dorfman declared her resignation from the Office of Mayor effective April 6, 1999.
The Council and the City Manager expressed congratulations to Mayor Dorfman on her
appointment to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
13
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the
attached resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of Mayor effective April 6, 1999. The
motion passed 7-0.
8f. Appointment to fill the vacancy in the Office of Mayor effective April 6, 1999
Resolution #99-45
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt the
attached resolution appointing Jeff Jacobs to the office of Mayor to fill vacancy. The motion
passed 5-0-2 with Mayor Gail Dorfman and Councilmember Jacobs abstaining.
Councilmember Jacobs thanked the Council for their motion of support.
8g. Traffic Study No. 541: Fire Lane Designation in Victoria Ponds
Development
Resolution #99-46
By consent, Council adopted 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
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
b. Planning /Park and Recreation Commission Minutes of February 3, 1999
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
c. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
10a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to appoint Rick
Dworsky and Dale Hartman to the Cable TV Advisory Commission. The motion passed 7-0.
11. New Business
11a. First Meeting of the City Board of Equalization
14
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to recommend
that the City Board of Equalization conduct its initial meeting on Monday, April 19, 1999 at 7:15
p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
11b. Resolution accepting resignation and declaring vacancy in the Office of
Councilmember at Large A
Resolution #99-47
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the
attached resolution declaring a vacancy in the Office of Councilmember at Large A effective
April 6, 1999. The motion passed 7-0.
11c. Appointment to fill the vacancy in the Office of Councilmember at Large A
effective April 6, 1999
Resolution #99-48
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the
attached resolution appointing Ron Latz to the Councilmember at Large A to fill vacancy. The
motion passed 5-0-2 with Mayor Gail Dorfman and Councilmember Latz abstaining.
Councilmember Latz stated that he appreciated the Council’s vote of confidence and the
opportunity to more directly serve all of the residents of St. Louis Park.
11b. Resolution accepting resignation and declaring vacancy in the Office of
Councilmember Ward 3
Resolution #99-49
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt the
attached resolution declaring a vacancy in the Office of Councilmember Ward 3 effective April
6, 1999. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Mayor Dorfman abstaining.
Council asked that the next study session agenda include a discussion about process for filling
the vacancy.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract Payments
Finals:
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $ 6,122.02
Concrete Sidewalk & Street Lighting
Contract NO. 47-98
By consent, Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing payment
15
Partial:
Hardrives, Inc. $157,804.17
Construction Phase 2
Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Ave to France Ave
Contract No. 14-98
By consent, Council approved and authorized payments.
14. Communications - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
16
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 in modifying the plan so that it that better accommodates the
City’s mission for the area.
Greg Esterman of Avalon Bay Communities was also present at the session and indicated that he
would be going back to the plan to make revisions and adjustments based on the
recommendations from that meeting.
Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification on additional owner occupied housing.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that one alternative was to make the owner occupied housing a community
of 40 units (town homes), but maintaining density was difficult. She stated there were many
issues to work out related to integrating 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 form a
stable community.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that conversions from apartments to condominiums could be examined but
this was more sensitive from a market perspective.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the design team discussed the height of the buildings.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that height of the buildings along Town Green and the rest of the general
area was discussed.
17
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 a municipal building or an 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 principles that had been discussed and
indicated that Council would like to see them incorporated into the design plan.
Council briefly discussed the height issue related to diversity and density, the sustainability of
public facilities, parking location, public funding of the 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. She stated that the amendments to the M-X Ordinance would be considered by
the Planning Commission on March 17th. She noted that the staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission would not 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 draft 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 in the participation
agreement as in the term loan.
Mr. Anderson indicated that this was the case.
Council discussed Exhibit B, a summary of reductions to the public financing plan from February
3, 1999. Mr. Anderson clarified that the reduction of discount rate meant the developer was
picking up the interest rate risk which would finance the gap and that the City would provide
them with an annual abatement payment plus interest.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if another partner would be available.
18
Mr. McKay stated that he did not believe he could get another partner. He also indicated he was
not enthusiastic about the term loan as there was not sufficient cash flow in the first ten years to
pay that money back.
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 said that this approach had not been used before. Mr. Denny explained a similar
project he had been involved with at LaSalle Plaza in Minneapolis.
Councilmember Brimeyer questioned the amount of the Environmental Insurance Policy. Mr.
Anderson indicated that the developer was assuming this risk.
Mr. Anderson summarized the City’s land situation and indicated that in this case the land would
essentially have no value if the City did not participate in the project. Without assistance to the
developer any rents for future tenants of the development would need to be based on the
extraordinary cost of remediating the property.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she could not assume the land has no value when purchase of
the billboard is requiring a significant amount of public dollars. She believed that the billboard
purchase indicated a certain amount of value and that any additional public contribution would
be a donation to make this project work.
Council recommended that since parking was not in the budget, cost projections should 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, 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 of reducing impact and increasing safety.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that accomplishing these objectives may decrease train
impact for residents in one area but increase the impact in another area.
19
Lee Koppy reviewed the existing infrastructure and operations of railroads in the City and also
explained potential future scenarios that will affect 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 this was considered in
light of the potential Kenilworth corridor closure.
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 suggested that staff develop recommendations for ways in which the public could
receive education and become involved in developing next steps.
Councilmember Brimeyer commented on the need to focus on the long term to accomplish
objectives stated 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 some of the
options presented would be expensive and not funded. She suggested that taking no action may
force the railroads to underwrite the costs of improvements.
Councilmember Latz stated that as a theoretical analysis presentation of this option could
favorably effect public relations. He felt the community should be informed of the negative
consequences which could occur if no action is taken.
Dick Koppy noted that MNDot’s decision to close the Hiawatha corridor and need to find
alternate routes is leverage for the City.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the results of Federal Safety Study were available. Mr. Meyer
indicated that he would obtain a final copy of that report.
Dick Koppy updated the Council on the report submitted to the City of Minnetonka related to
blocking operations.
4. Neighborhood Grant Reimbursements
Ms. McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator, explained the request for a change in the
grant reimbursement system to allow for money to be disbursed to the neighborhoods prior to
expenses being incurred. Neighborhood leaders have considered it a hardship to making out of
pocket expenditures for projects which will be reimbursed by the City.
20
After a brief discussion, the Council indicated they had no objections to offering this 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 the strength of the City’s position 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
reluctance 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 noted that there was no
expiration on the preliminary PUD approval in 1995.
Councilmember Sanger recommended having the City Attorney analyze the strength of the City’s
position in upholding the land use change.
Councilmember Brimeyer was not in favor of incurring expenses for legal advice.
Councilmember Latz believed it was worthwhile to attain legal advice to determine options and
estimates of what it would cost the City to litigate.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the impact to the Blackstone neighborhood to allow
big box development on the site.
Council directed staff to pursue an economic and legal analysis of the land purchase for proposed
residential development.
6. Development of Capital Financing and Debt Management Policies
Ms. McBride, Director of Finance, gave a detailing the financial status of funds related to the
past and current capital financing plan.
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 was also staff’s
recommendation that the bond issue include amounts for projects scheduled in 2000 and 2001. It
was also recommended that the City continue to internally finance that portion of projects costs
which are recouped through special assessments.
21
Council discussed the issuance of bonds for projects that the City knows will be completed
without adequate funding, 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 a copy of the Roseville budget for review.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be a negative impact if Council chose not to act at
this time.
Ms. McBride stated that with a time delay there would be more deficits and some older projects
may be missed.
The Council directed staff to bring an initial authorizing resolution for the G.O. Debt Bond Sale
to the first meeting in April. They also agreed that some of the general operating debt surplus
should be placed into the Park Improvement Fund.
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
22
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. Walsh),
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. He indicated that with further
direction from the Council, the plan would be refined and financial information would be
developed.
Councilmember Nelson desired to see the elevation of ground-level work/shops that had 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 said that streetscape improvements and the Town Green may 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 asked council to
visualize a football field. Council discussed the proposed new width of the Town Green and
believed it achieves goals originally set. Councilmember Nelson stressed that he did not feel
discussion about width of the Town Green should be over. Ms. Jeremiah agreed to get
23
preliminary elevation sketches and comparisons to 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 the design fit. She also felt it would help put the proposed
north/south roadway into perspective.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed the visibility of open space from Excelsior Boulevard was
important to draw attention to the Town Center.
Councilmember Jacobs indicated that the actual width of the Town Green was not important but
that it had to work as a pedestrian walkway and still maintain visual interest.
Mr. Estermann explained the challenges of a mixed use design with shared uses as a means to
reduce costs and increase functionality.
Councilmember Latz suggested developing a pedestrian promenade along the edge of the park.
Council recommended using additional park space in order to make the design work properly for
vehicles, pedestrians and servicing.
Councilmember Nelson believed making 38th Street pedestrian friendly was a good goal, but
wanted to be sure vehicles were also accommodated so that the area could 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
a part of their entire compensation package.
Councilmember Nelson believed that the historical record should be the justification and that the
contribution has been a long standing benefit. He was not in favor of 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.
Councilmember Latz was in favor of equalization of rates of single/family because he questioned
whether the taxpayer should be subsidizing the individual choices of employees.
24
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 continue on the course which had been identified by staff.
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 presented a staff report and recommended discussion of the following policy
issues:
Funding mechanisms and approaches:
Councilmember Sanger questioned the reason for the differentiation between “City” sidewalk
connections and “Neighborhood” sidewalk connections as they relate to funding and
maintenance.
Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification about the use of a sidewalk utility and distribution
of cost.
Staff believed that as more responsibility for funding and maintenance are placed on the property
owner, the less likely building the system becomes.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that sidewalks and trails be discussed as separate items. She
felt trails and sidewalks impact residents differently and questioned whether Council desired to
impose this plan on the neighborhoods.
Mayor Dorfman believed that it was important to develop a process for informing the community
of the plan and felt the approach for implementation should show how the entire system could be
a community wide benefit.
Council discussed the possibility of all City sidewalk connections and possibly neighborhood
sidewalk connections funded by the City with options outlined by staff.
Long term repair and replacement responsibilities
Council agreed that the current policy regarding repair and replacement would not change.
Snow removal responsibilities
Council discussed snow removal alternatives and considered the possibility that if snow removal
from all sidewalks were a City function the plan would be more readily accepted.
25
Mayor Dorfman believed that requiring property owners to remove snow from sidewalks which
front their property builds neighborhood responsibility and community pride.
Council discussed the feasibility of enforcing a requirement that all property owners be
responsible for snow removal 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 considered that the city move forward with the first priority City sidewalks, trails and
crossings without neighborhood sidewalks, do a utility bond issue and proceed from there.
Mr. Harmening asked why the city would consider doing only part of the first priority. Mayor
Dorfman stated that politically it may be easier for the community to accept.
Councilmember Sanger recommended doing all City sidewalks, 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 regard to the
proposed G.O. improvement bond issue planned for this spring or for the financing of other
projects, such as trails and sidewalks.
Bob Ehlers of Ehlers and Associates was present.
5. Comprehensive Plan Update
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, indicated that the Comprehensive Plan document was now
complete and gave an update about the proposed distribution schedule and 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.
Mr. Harmening stated that in the comprehensive Plan, the Honeywell site is guided as
Commercial which is different than part of the site having a residential designation as had been
discussed in the past. After discussion regarding purchase of the property and subsequent
economic analysis, Council did not wish to conduct a thorough economic analysis at this time.
26
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 asked for 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 area businesses would be in support of a small scale
streetscape design with anticipated costs beyond the curb and median enhancements.
7. Railroad Discussion
Mr. Meyer gave an overview of options contained in the railroad report as they relate to short
term action steps and recommendations for future actions in St. Louis Park and 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 component of the environmental study be completed as
a first phase item. The principal reason for putting this item first would be that this is an area
that holds promise for results in the short term. Action taken in the near future 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
railroad issues so that other neighborhoods could see the overall benefit for the community.
Dick Koppy stated that the short term plan surfaced quickly and has the momentum to produce
results right away.
Mr. Meyer stated that since there was no objection by Council, staff would start to develop a
process to inform neighborhoods of the results of the railroad study report and refine next steps
for our consultants.
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 suggestions for Council to review at a future meeting.
27
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of April 19, 1999
6a. Amendment to Special Permit to construct a 45-unit apartment building in the
R-4 Zoning District
Case No. 99-5-CUP
1351 Hampshire Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to open the public hearing. Motion to continue the public
hearing until May 3, 1999.
Zoning: R-4, Multiple Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential up to 30 units/acre
Background:
TBI Partnership, the owner, is proposing to construct a three story, 45 unit apartment building
with one level of underground parking on a portion of an existing apartment property. The site is
the southeast corner of a 6.1 acre property which currently contains a 108 unit apartment
building. Access to the apartment is proposed via a private drive which leads to Hampshire
Avenue. Hampshire ends in a cul de sac to the south, which separates the apartment area from a
single family neighborhood. The property is south of the Lincoln Mercury car dealership, west of
an office development, and north and east of other apartments. The development would require
the relocation of an existing private walking trail and playground equipment. A small amount of
floodplain area is proposed to be filled, and compensating storage is proposed nearby on site.
A Special Permit was granted in 1987 approving a nearly identical apartment proposal, but that
project was never built. The current project requires an amendment to the existing Special
Permit, which entails review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing and approval by
the City Council.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request on March 17, 1999 and recommended approval
on a vote of 6-0, subject to the conditions outlined by staff. Several residents were in attendance
and commented on the proposal and other neighborhood issues. In response to some of the
comments, the Planning Commission directed staff to look at whether a sidewalk could be
installed along Hampshire Avenue without disturbing trees, and to work with the applicant to
possibly redistribute required landscaping along Hampshire Avenue. In addition, the Public
Works Department is performing a traffic count for Hampshire Avenue north of the cul de sac to
Wayzata Boulevard to determine current levels of traffic in relation to what the street should be
expected to carry.
29
Issues:
• Why is staff recommending continuance?
• What are the requirements for amending a Special Permit?
• What are the conditions for multi-family development in the R-4 zone?
• Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
• Are there any other issues?
Issues Analysis:
Why is staff recommending continuance?
There are several issues which staff believes should be resolved before the City Council
considers the proposal, including the following:
Sidewalk: Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s direction to staff, staff asked the applicant to
determine whether a sidewalk can be installed along Hampshire Avenue without disturbing the
existing mature trees in the boulevard area. The applicant is planning to submit plans showing a
sidewalk on April 14, 1999. However, the plans were not yet available for review prior to this
report.
Redistribution of landscaping: The landscaping and bufferyard requirements for the apartment
proposal are minimal except for the requirement to install a Bufferyard F (the highest possible
requirement in the Zoning Ordinance) along the entire length of the east property line. This
bufferyard is required to correct an existing non-conformity and because the adjacent office
property is classified as a very intense land use. At the Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant’s architect stated that the amount of landscaping required along the east property line
would interfere with drainage in that area and that the density of plants proposed probably would
not survive. The architect proposed redistributing the landscaping throughout the property. The
Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant regarding this issue, particularly
in light of neighbor’s concerns about adequate landscaping along Hampshire Avenue.
Because the landscape bufferyard is required to correct an existing nonconformity, there is some
flexibility in applying the standard. The Zoning Ordinance states that in amending Special Use
Permits, non-conformities on the site shall be brought into “greater or complete compliance with
other provisions of this ordinance to the extent reasonable and possible” (emphasis added). Staff
believes that it is reasonable and preferable to allow the applicant to redistribute some of the
required landscaping along Hampshire and other areas on the site while still providing a
significant buffer along the east property line. A revised landscape plan is anticipated to be
submitted on April 14, 1999. However, the plans were not yet available for review prior to this
report.
Existing trees: It has recently come to staff’s attention that there are several existing trees on the
property which were not shown on the site survey. Several of these trees were on the proposed
building pad for the new apartment and would need to be removed or relocated. Staff is
30
therefore requiring the applicant to submit a complete tree inventory for the property. The
applicant plans to submit the tree inventory on April 14, 1999. Again, the plans were not
available prior to this report.
If no revisions are needed to the new plans, staff anticipates these issues being resolved before
the May 3, 1999 City Council meeting.
What are the requirements for amending a Special Permit?
Existing Special Permits are required to be amended when changes are proposed to a site. The
conditions of approval are that the conditions of the Special Permit must continue to be met; that
nonconformities on the site, with some exceptions, must be eliminated; and that all other
provisions of the Zoning Code must be met.
Conditions of Special Permit: All of the conditions attached to the existing Special Permit
pertain to the 108-unit building and have been met, except for one condition (condition #5). This
condition relates to the approval of an almost identical apartment proposal in 1987. This
condition would be eliminated and replaced with conditions pertaining to this proposal.
Nonconformities: A Bufferyard F is required along the east property line. The applicant is
proposing to add an equivalent amount of plantings to a Bufferyard F but distribute the
landscaping throughout the site. Staff believes this is acceptable (please see above). There are
no other nonconformities on the site.
Please see below for other Zoning Ordinance requirements.
What are the conditions for multi-family development in the R-4 zone?
Multiple family residential development is permitted by conditional use permit in the R-4 zone,
provided certain conditions are met as follows:
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.
Access to the site is via a private drive which connects to Hampshire Avenue, which then
connects to Wayzata Boulevard. Hampshire Avenue ends in a cul de sac just south of the subject
property so that there is no access to or from the south (a separate section of Hampshire exists
south of the cul de sac). Therefore, all traffic to and from the proposed apartment would use
Wayzata Boulevard and would not generate through traffic on other local streets. The portion of
Hampshire Avenue from the cul de sac to Wayzata Boulevard contains only multifamily housing,
mostly apartments. Several residents at the March 17 Planning Commission meeting complained
about the existing traffic volumes on this street. Planning staff has asked Public Works to
conduct a traffic count on Hampshire to determine whether the levels are within those expected
for this type of street. This information will be available for the May 3 City Council meeting.
31
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.
In order to meet the open space requirements, the applicant originally proposed widening the
boulevard area along Hampshire Avenue and shifting the parking area a few feet closer to the
existing apartment building. However, this was based on an undercount of other usable open
space on the site. The applicant is planning to submit a revised open space plan on April 14
showing that the property can meet the usable open space requirement without widening the
boulevard area. Staff believes this is preferable because the previous plan had the potential to
disturb existing trees near the apartment building.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the buildings.
The two apartment buildings are well over 40 feet apart, the maximum height of the buildings.
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to share
common walls.
Because this is an apartment building, this condition is not applicable.
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.
This condition is met. The applicant is proposing to remove four existing parking stalls along the
private drive, just west of the western corner of the proposed building, which would have
encroached on this 15 foot requirement.
R-4 Dimensional Standards and Densities:
The maximum density is 30 units per acre. The proposed apartment brings this property to 25
units per acre density. The height of the building is 34 feet, measured from the first apartment
floor to the average roof height, which is under the 40 foot maximum. The Floor Area Ratio is
proposed to be .64 and the Ground Floor Area Ratio is proposed to be .21 for the entire parcel,
which complies with the maximum FAR and GFAR of .7 and .35 respectively. Setback
requirements are met. Therefore, all the dimensional and density standards are met.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that all developments requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be
consistent with and supportive of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This property is guided
for up to 30 units per acre of multi-family housing, and this proposal brings the density of the
property to approximately 25 units per acre. In addition, a key goal is to increase the supply of
housing in the City generally. This proposal contributes towards that goal by increasing the
amount of market-rate housing.
32
33
Are other Zoning Ordinance requirements met?
Parking: There are currently 237 parking spaces provided on site. 17 parking spaces are
proposed to be removed to make way for the new apartment building and 91 spaces added, for a
total of 311 spaces proposed for the entire site. There are 60 enclosed spaces currently and 54
new underground spaces proposed. The proposed parking meets the Ordinance requirement of
two spaces per dwelling unit. Staff has also recommended that the applicant designate a
minimum of 20 spaces as guest parking, given the lack of nearby on-street parking. A revised
site plan shows nine spaces in front of the proposed apartment building and at least 11 spaces in
front of the existing apartment building for guest parking only.
Architectural Standards: The exterior of the building is proposed to be a combination of brick
and artificial stucco, with textured concrete block around the base of the building and cedar
decks on some units. The design and materials comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Landscaping: A landscape Bufferyard F is required along the east property line. The applicant is
planning to submit revised plans showing an equivalent number of plants distributed throughout
the site including along Hampshire Avenue (please see above). In addition, a Bufferyard A is
required along the south property line adjacent to the proposed apartment building, and planting
islands are required within the proposed surface parking lot. These landscape requirements are
met.
Lighting: Lighting specifications are needed for the lighting proposed on the landscape plan. In
addition, any other exterior lighting including lighting on the building must be shown on a
lighting plan. Staff is recommending that a lighting plan be approved prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Are there any other issues?
Playground and private trail: There is currently a playground area in the center of the proposed
building site and a private walking path which links up with other nearby private trails. The
playground is proposed to be relocated to the southwest corner of the new apartment building.
This appears to be an appropriate location as the playground would be accessible and visible
from both apartments. The applicant had originally proposed re-routing the walking trail along
the north side of the proposed parking lot, but is working on a different location that would not
be affected by runoff from the garage roofs. A revised site plan is to be submitted to staff on
April 14, 1999 showing the re-routed trail.
Floodplain alteration and ponding: A small amount of floodplain is proposed to be filled at the
southeast corner of the proposed building. Compensating storage, as required by City and
Watershed District standards, would be provided on the site as shown on the attached plan. The
Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and accepted the floodplain alteration plans
and calculations. Stormwater ponding for the site is proposed to be provided by nearby Otten
Pond, a City-owned pond which was designed to accommodate the ponding needs of nearby
34
development. A Watershed District permit must be obtained by the applicant from the Basset
Creek Watershed District prior to any site work.
Fire Department requirements: The Fire Department had requested some minor revisions to the
site plan. The Fire Department has reviewed and accepted a revised site plan.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending continuance of the Special Permit amendment until May 3, 1999 to allow
time to review traffic information and revised plans.
Attachments:
• Location Map
• Development plans (to be revised)
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8a. Election of Mayor Pro-tem
Appointment of Mayor Pro Tem as required by State Statute section 412.121
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution appointing a Mayor Pro-tem
Background:
As required by Minnesota State Statute section 412.121, Council acted at the first meeting of this
year to appoint Jeff Jacobs to the Mayor Pro Tem position. Mr. Jacobs has since been elected to
serve as Mayor and has resigned from the Mayor Pro Tem position effective April 7, 1999.
Council must now act to appoint another member to serve as Mayor Pro Tem.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
36
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING _____________________
TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR PRO-TEM
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 412.121 requires cities to choose each year an
acting Mayor from the Council members; and
WHEREAS, the acting Mayor shall perform the duties of Mayor during the disability or absence
of the Mayor from the City or, in case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a successor has
been appointed and qualifies; and
WHEREAS, the Council has carefully reviewed the qualifications of all Council members and
has considered the desires of the residents and 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 Pro-tem of the City of St. Louis Park and shall
serve in that capacity until a duly elected successor assumes the office at the first regular City
Council meeting of the year 2000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8b. 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program Awards
The neighborhood grant review committee and the City Council have reviewed the
neighborhood grant applications. The City Council is now being asked to adopt a
resolution to approve funding of the applications.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1999 neighborhood
revitalization grant program applications and authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreements with the
neighborhoods
Background:
Fourteen neighborhood organizations requested funding from the neighborhood revitalization
grant program for 1999. Staff and a committee comprised of representatives from seven
neighborhoods reviewed the applications at a meeting on Monday, April 29th. The grant review
committee was impressed with the creativity of the proposals and recommended Council
approval for all applications except one for Texa Tonka, which requested funds for activities
proposed to occur during next year’s grant cycle in the summer of the year 2000. For several
grants, the committee also recommended conditions requiring the submission of project
maintenance plans, itemized activity budgets, or completed use of funds from old grants.
Conditions recommended for grants will be outlined in the grant agreements for each
neighborhood.
During the April 12, 1999, study session, the City Council reviewed the recommendations made
by the grant review committee. The Council indicated its support for all of recommendations and
conditions placed on awards, including approval of the grant for the Texa Tonka neighborhood.
$1,232 Lenox $725 Birchwood
$4,038 Fern Hill $1,500 Sorensen
$4,000 Lake Forest $1,355 Blackstone
$3,647 Bronx Park $1,300 Aquila
$3,275 Browndale $1,200 Texa Tonka
$1,110 Creekside $995 Brookside
$1,500 Elmwood $380 Minikahda Oaks
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council a resolution approving the 1999
neighborhood revitalization grant program applications and authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute related grant agreements with the neighborhoods.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator
38
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
39
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE 1999 NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION GRANT PROGRAM AWARDS AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE
RECIPIENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council appropriated $40,000 in grant funds for the 1999 Neighborhood
Revitalization Grant Program for organized neighborhoods to promote and enhance community
building and leadership activities; and
WHEREAS, applications from fourteen neighborhood associations were received on March 19,
1999, that requested funds for neighborhood projects; and
WHEREAS, the grant review committee comprised of neighborhood representatives reviewed
the applications on March 29, 1999 and made funding recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the funding recommendations at a study session on April
12, 1999; and
WHEREAS, certain conditions must still be met by some neighborhoods to proceed with their
proposed projects and these will be outlined in grant agreements that will be executed between
the City and each neighborhood association;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the funding of the
following projects according to conditions to be set forth in grant agreements, and authorizes the
Mayor and City Manager to execute these grant agreements with the following neighborhoods:
$1,232 Lenox Quarterly Meetings, Newsletter, New neighbor welcome, Children First
Activities, Spring Potluck, Fall Picnic, Holiday Lights contest/winter
party, Recognition dinner, Parkview Park Bar-B-Q grill
$4,038 Fern Hill Neighborhood involvement survey, New neighbor welcome packets,
Annual neighborhood picnic, Neighborhood garage sale, Active member
appreciation dinner, Water fountain on warming house, Checkers/chess
table, Bulletin board on warming house
$4,000 Lake Forest 3 gardens in Twin Lakes Park, Refreshments during garden construction,
Garden completion celebration, New year’s day party in the garden,
Garden club development
$3,647 Bronx Park Newsletter, Revit. of Nelson Park plants and supplies, Children’s
summer arts & crafts party, Children’s summer pizza party, Children’s
40
summer ice cream party, Copies for meetings, Postage for mailing
agendas, Summer BPNA picnic
$3,275 Browndale Newsletters, Meetings, Picnic 1999, Fall event 1999, Skating event
2000, Spring event 2000, Walking path in Browndale Park, Garden in
Browndale park,
$1,110 Creekside Annual block party, Newcomers welcome & final farewells, Meetings
$1,500 Elmwood Meetings quarterly, Newsletter quarterly, Recognition/Thank You, Park
cleanup refreshments, Twins night out, Fall/Halloween Party, Welcome
baskets for new neighbors
$725 Birchwood Annual party, Recognition dinner
$1,500 Sorensen Newsletters and Volunteer survey, Welcome Packets for new neighbors,
Annual garage sale, Ice cream social, Party at the roller garden
$1,355 Blackstone Meeting expenses and volunteer appreciation, Community mailing and
survey, National night out, one each for houses and condos, Garage
sale/organization kick off, Joint community activity (trail opening
event), Holiday house decorating contest
$1,300 Aquila Neighborhood cleanup, Night out, Parktackular, Picnic, National night
out, Garage sale, Trail opening, Fall event, Quarterly newsletter,
Monthly meetings, newsletter & postage, Trail opening Intra
neighborhood activities
$1,200 Texa Tonka Newsletter spring & summer 2000, Inter-Neighborhood activities trail
opening, June 2000 picnic
$995 Brookside Association meetings, Neighborhood garage sale, National night out
party, Halloween party, New neighbor welcome packets, Thank you to
neighborhood block captains
$380 Minikahda Oaks Annual meeting – Picnic & Autumn social, Welcome wagon,
Volunteer appreciation
Adopted by the City Council on April, 19, 1999
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
41
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8c. 1999 Sojourner Contract
Renewal of existing contract with Sojourner Project, inc., to perform advocacy
services for victims of domestic violence.
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute contract with
Sojourner Project, Inc. in the amount of $39,159.00 for advocacy
services for the period January 1 through December 31, 1999.
The contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
Background:
The City has allocated funding to Sojourner Project, Inc., since 1989. During that time,
Sojourner has provided the advocacy component to the victims of domestic violence within the
city. These services are available 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
In 1997, funding for Sojourner was transferred from the General Services budget unit to the
police department for review of service needs and development of a contract. The first annual
contract with Sojourner was executed in 1997. There are no recommended changes to the
contract.
Analysis:
Intervention case statistics in St. Louis Park for the last four years are:
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Police
Interventions:
154 230 124* 153* 135
City Funding: $46,805 $38,204 $38,204 $38,204 $39,159
* Figures revised 2/99 after reclassifying raw data.
According to Sojourner, Inc., from 1994 through 1998, there were 796 interventions done in St.
Louis Park. During that same time period, the City paid $200,576 for those services. Averaging
those figures shows that the City has paid approximately $252 per intervention over the last five
years.
42
Staff is aware that the City Council wishes departments to competitively bid services whenever
possible to do so. The domestic abuse advocacy contract was not put out for competitive bids for
the following reasons:
1. Sojourner Project Inc. has been performing the advocacy work for the City since 1989
and is very aware of the city’s policy for the deliverance of these services.
2. Sojourner has adequate staff to meet the City’s needs for an advocacy program.
3. There are a very limited number of advocacy organizations in the metro area that could
meet the requirements of the contract.
Attachments: Proposed 1999 Agreement with Sojourner Project Inc.
Domestic Assault Reports by Year and by Neighborhood
Request for Funding dated 12/30/98 (on file in Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
43
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 1999, between the CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and SOJOURNER
PROJECT, INC., a duly organized Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Sojourner").
WHEREAS, Sojourner has organized a Domestic Assault Intervention Project
within the Hennepin County suburban area for the general purpose of intervening in
domestic assault cases by providing information and advocacy for victims of domestic
assault and by advocating appropriate responses to assailants within the criminal justice and
human services systems; and
WHEREAS, City, recognizing its commitment to the exploration and development
of appropriate community actions in response to domestic violence, has pledged the sum of
Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty-nine and 00/100 Dollars ($39,159.00) for 1999,
to contract with Sojourner for the services of Sojourner in accordance with its Domestic
Assault Intervention Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties agree
as follows:
1. Term. Sojourner shall render services to City in accordance with its
Domestic Assault Intervention Project, for a period of one year, beginning January 1, 1999,
and ending December 31, 1999.
2. Duties of Sojourner. Sojourner shall provide the following services:
a) Administer and supervise its Domestic Assault Intervention Project in the City
of St. Louis Park, as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
b) Work with the City Attorney and the court system to seek court outcomes that
offer maximum safety for victims and hold assailants accountable for violent
behavior. Assist the City Attorney in the development and annual review of a
domestic assault prosecution plan. Work with the City's Police Department as
set forth in this Agreement.
c) Recruit, train, and supervise volunteers in accordance with its Domestic Assault
Intervention Project.
44
d) Upon notification by the City Police Department, trained volunteers or
Sojourner staff will follow domestic assault arrests with telephone contact with
the victim within one hour of receiving notice from the City. If the victim does
not have a telephone, Sojourner shall make reasonable efforts to contact the
victim; taking into consideration the safety of the victim and availability of
Sojourner staff and volunteers.
e) Throughout the arrest and court process, trained volunteers or Sojourner staff
will provide domestic assault victims with information concerning emergency
shelter, protective orders, legal services, and support/educational groups
available to domestic assault victims.
f) Maintain a twenty-four hour telephone service to be staffed by trained
volunteers or Sojourner staff. Sojourner through its twenty-four hour telephone
service shall (1) provide information to callers regarding services and
alternatives available to victims of domestic assault, and (2) contact the
appropriate Sojourner staff or volunteers as soon as domestic assaults are called
in by the City Police Department.
g) Provide support/educational groups for victims. Provide community education
designed to inform residents about the problem of domestic assault and the
services available through Sojourner. In conjunction with designated City staff,
provide educational sessions to young adults concerning the legal and social
aspects of domestic assault.
h) Develop and provide a training program to the City Police Department on the
Domestic Assault Intervention Project, if requested by the City Police
Department. The training program shall include policy/procedure updates,
judicial and legislative actions affecting domestic assault arrests.
i) Sojourner staff and volunteers may not advocate to the Court or to the City
Attorney on behalf of any individual who is identified as a suspect or defendant
in any criminal matter involving the City. Sojourner may contact another
advocacy organization regarding said individual. If Sojourner is unable to
arrange advocacy through another individual or organization, a Sojourner
representative who is not a primary advocate assigned to City cases may be
present in court to support a defendant in a criminal matter involving the City.
The volunteer shall not publicly announce their presence or affiliation with
Sojourner. Sojourner shall not use its relationship with the City, the City Police
Department, or the City Attorney's office to obtain information on a defendant
in a criminal matter involving the City. If Sojourner desires public data on such
45
defendant, the request shall be in writing, and shall disclose that it is on behalf
of such defendant.
j) Act as a support network for City domestic assault victims and their children.
k) Provide quarterly reports to the City within 30 days after the end of each
quarter. The quarterly reports must contain data on referrals from the City
Police Department, actual service numbers, staff time, studies and other data
requested by City Staff to verify that the funding provided by the City is used
for City residents. Upon request, Sojourner will allow City staff reasonable
access to all of its records for the purpose of verifying information submitted in
quarterly reports.
l) The Community Team Coordinator of Sojourner shall meet at least annually
with designated City staff. Additional meetings may be held as deemed
necessary.
All of the above duties shall be performed by Sojourner in consultation with the City Police
Chief or designee.
3. Consideration. The total obligation of the City for all reimbursements to
Sojourner in 1999 shall not exceed Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Fifty-nine and
00/100 Dollars ($39,159.00).
4. Terms of Payment. Consideration for all services performed by Sojourner
pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid by the City as follows:
a) Reimbursement shall be four payments of Nine Thousand Seven Hundred
Eighty-nine and 75/100 Dollars ($9,789.75).
b) Payments shall be made by the City within thirty (30) days after Sojourner's
presentation of invoices for services performed.
c) Invoices shall be submitted to the City by Sojourner quarterly, no later than
the 10th day of the month following the end of the quarter.
5. Conflict Resolution/Termination. The City and Sojourner agree to contact
each other if there is a disagreement or the services or information provided are
unsatisfactory, describe the problem in writing, and make a good faith effort to resolve the
problem. If the problem cannot be resolved, this Agreement may be terminated by the City
or Sojourner upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a
46
termination, Sojourner shall only be entitled to payment determined on a pro rata basis for
work or services performed up to the date of termination.
6. Liability. Sojourner is acting as an independent contractor. All Sojourner
staff or volunteers provided hereunder, or other agents, or employees of Sojourner shall not
be employees of City, and Sojourner agrees to be responsible for any and all worker's
compensation, employee benefits, withholding, F.I.C.A., and taxes applicable to such
persons. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall render either party an agent of the other
for any purpose, or either party liable for any debts, liabilities, or obligations of the other,
whether now or existing or incurred in the performance of this Agreement, and neither party
shall have the authority by virtue of this Agreement to represent or bind the other in any
manner whatsoever.
7. Insurance. Sojourner shall carry and keep in force insurance including but
not limited to general liability and automobile liability insurance and worker's compensation
insurance in compliance with applicable statutes. Said insurance policies shall be from an
insurance company licensed to do business in Minnesota.
8. Indemnification. Sojourner agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and
defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any and all actions or cause of action,
claims, demands, loss, damage or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, which City
shall or may at any time sustain, precipitate, or incur arising out of or in relation to the
conduct of Sojourner or employees, agents, volunteers or servants of Sojourner acting
within the scope of and in connection with Sojourner's Domestic Assault Intervention
Project.
9. Non-Assignability. This Agreement is personal to the parties specified
herein and may not be transferred or assigned by either party hereto.
10. Integration. This Agreement supersedes all prior discussions and
negotiations and contains all agreements and understandings between the City and
Sojourner. This Agreement shall not be altered or modified except by an instrument in
writing signed by the parties.
11. Equal Opportunity. Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement
shall be provided regardless of race, color, national origin, religion or sex. Sojourner shall
require its staff and volunteers to receive ongoing training to increase awareness and
sensitivity to racial, cultural and religious diversity.
47
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this
Agreement on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BY:________________________________
Its Mayor
AND
_______________________________
Its City Manager
SOJOURNER PROJECT, INC.
BY: _______________________________
Its Executive Director
48
DOMESTIC ASSAULT REPORTS BY YEAR
Domestic Assault Reports by Year
124
153
135
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1996 1997 1998
Year
49
DOMESTIC ASSAULT REPORTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
Domestic Assault by Neighborhood
0
5
10
15
20
25
123456789101113141516171819202123242527293031323335Neighborhoods
1997
1998
Neighborhoods:
1 - Shelard Park 19 – Lenox
2 - Kilmer 20 - Sorenson
3 - Crestview 21 – Birchwood
4 - Westwood Hills 22 - Lake Forest
5 - Cedar Manor 23 - Fern Hill
6 - North Side 24 – Triangle
7 - Pennsylvania Park 25 - Wolfe Park
8 - Elliot 26 - Minikahda Oaks
9 - Blackstone 27 - Minikahda Vista
10 - Cedarhurst 28 – Browndale
11 - Eliotview 29 – Brookside
12 - Cobblecrest 30 – Brooklawn
13 - Minnehaha 31 – Elmwood
14 - Amhurst 32 – Meadowbrook
15 - Aquila 33 - South Oak Hill
16 - Oak Hill 34 – Westdale
17 - Texa Tonka 35 – Creekside
18 - Bronx Park
50
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8d. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the “R-C” Zoning District .
Case No. 99-4-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve Second Reading, adopt an ordinance to
amend the “R-C” Multiple Family Residential District, approve
Summary Ordinance, and authorize publication.
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. Certain conditions of approval could be waived or
amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the
City Comprehensive Plan.
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. The Planning Commission also recommended
approval of a new definition for live-work units and standards for such uses in the “R-C”
District.
The City Council held a public hearing and approved First Reading of the proposed ordinance
with modifications on April 5, 1999. Based upon Council direction during First Reading and
during the April 12th Study Session, the proposed ordinance has been amended to remove the
definition and standards for live-work units and to clarify when certain conditions of approval
may be waived or amended. The multiple-family/cluster housing standards have also been
amended to ensure that sidewalks are required on both private and public streets.
51
Issues:
• How Would Multiple-Family Residential Development Be Facilitated?
• How Would Offices and Other Non-Residential Uses Be Restricted?
Analysis of Issues:
• How Would Multiple-Family Residential Development Be Facilitated?
The ordinance would help facilitate 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). As noted, the standard relating to sidewalks has been expanded to
require them along both sides of private as well as public streets. Certain conditions of approval
may be waived or amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan. Such Redevelopment Plans will be subject to
public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, any modified
standards will have to endure substantial public review and approval by the City Council.
• 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
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.
52
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.
If the Council approves Second Reading on April 19th , the Summary Ordinance will be
published on April 28th, and the ordinance will become effective on May 13, 1999.
Attachments:
• Proposed Ordinance
• Proposed Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
53
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 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, Section 14:5-4.6 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
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
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
54
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.
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.
55
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 and certain performance standards may be waived or
amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.
e The property shall be designated for Civic or Civic-Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan.
56
6. EDUCATIONAL (Academic)
Conditions:
a. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a lot in an "R" Use
District.
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 and certain performance standards may be waived or
amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.
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 otherwise specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.
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.
57
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
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 and certain performance standards may be waived or
amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.
58
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:
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.
59
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 both sides of
all private and public streets.
h. Conditions a through g and certain performance standards may be waived or
amended if so specified in a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been
adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan.
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.
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
60
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
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.
61
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.
d. Overnight parking of vehicles whose passenger capacity exceeds 15 shall be
prohibited on the site.
62
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.
63
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.
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 all of the following conditions are met, unless said conditions
are waived or amended by a Redevelopment Plan for the area that has been adopted as
part of the City Comprehensive Plan:
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.
64
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
The following standards shall apply unless specifically waived or amended by a Redevelopment
Plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the City Comprehensive Plan 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
65
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 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
66
Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
99-4/N/resord
67
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:5-4.6
This ordinance amends the “R-C” Multiple Family Residential District to better reflect
Comprehensive Plan housing goals for these areas and is intended to help facilitate residential
development. Non-residential uses could be considered through a more stringent review process
or in a mixed-use context.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
Jeff Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: April 28, 1999
68
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8e. Application for 3.2% Malt Liquor off-sale license for Supervalu, Inc. dba Cub
Foods at 3620 Texas Avenue South
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the application for 3.2% Malt Liquor off-sale
license for Supervalu, Inc. dba Cub Foods.
Background:
The previous Wards retail store at Knollwood Mall has been remodeled into a new Cub Foods.
On March 15, 1999, a completed application was received from Supervalu, Inc. dba Cub Foods
for a 3.2% Malt Liquor off-sale license at 3620 Texas Avenue South.
Police Investigation:
The principals were investigated and no problems were found.
Documentation:
The Police investigation report and the application materials are available for review in the
Inspections Department.
Prepared by: Cindy Kaiser, Licensing-Inspections Department
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
69
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8f.* Traffic Study No. 542: No parking on the south side of 2230 Highway 100
(former 5 Star Auto, now Midland Glass).
This report considers “No Parking Anytime” on the south side of 2230 Highway
100.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to accept this report for filing and adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the parking restrictions on the south side
of 2230 Highway 100.
Background: The new owner of 2230 Highway 100 met with City staff and has requested that
the on-street parking (two spaces) on the south side of his property be eliminated. This property
was formerly occupied by 5 Star Auto and they did not want any reduction in on-street parking.
The new owner is also the occupant of the property, Midland Glass. The request to eliminate the
on-street parking is supported by staff as it will increase the visibility and reduce congestion at
this location. The two (2) on-street parking spaces do not impact adjacent businesses.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time:
* 1. Approve the request. It so, the attached resolution authorizing the
installation of the parking regulations may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
70
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING "NO PARKING ANYTIME”
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 2230 HIGHWAY 100
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 542
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking Anytime” on the south side of 2230 Highway 100.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
71
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8g*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
8g*. Resolution approving an additional allocation to the St. Louis Park
Emergency Repair Program funded through the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant
Council is asked to approve an additional allocation of $13,500 in order to
complete the emergency housing needs of clients approved through the 1998
Emergency Repair Program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a resolution authorizing the allocation of
$13,500 in Community Development Block Grant Funds to the
St. Louis Park Emergency Repair Program administered by
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
Background:
Due to an unexpected demand for emergency repair funds, as well as the technical considerations
of several specific rehabilitation projects funded through the program, an additional $13,500 is
needed to complete the emergency repair needs of approved 1998 Emergency Repair Program
recipients.
The table below shows the allocation of 1997, 1998 and 1999 CDBG funds for single family
housing rehabilitation activities.
Program Activity
Committed to Projects
1997 1998 1999 TOTAL
SF Rehabilitation $120,000 $160,000 $ 100,000 $380,000
Emergency Repair $12,000 $20,000 $ 0 $32,000
SF Maintenance
Education and
Counseling
$14,000 $14,000 $ 0 $28,000
Elderly Minor Home
Repair
$6,000 $6,000 $ 0 $12,000
Single Family and Supportive Programs - TOTAL $452,000
The additional funds are needed for a number of different reasons to help five specific clients, all
of whom have very low-incomes and access to no other resources to help with these repairs.
Several of these clients were authorized to receive funding through the program but during the
period in which their application was being processed, they incurred additional emergency needs,
primarily from water damage due to roof problems. Two of the clients only recently came to the
attention of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin and they have expressed a concern that
the homeowners will not be able to remain in their homes if they can’t access these emergency
72
funds. At least two of the five clients are likely to undergo more substantial rehabilitation to
their homes under the regular CDBG single family rehabilitation program. Investing in the
necessary emergency repairs now will prevent further damage and could very well reduce the
amount of CDBG funds that will be needed for a substantial rehabilitation later.
As you may recall, Emergency Repair Program funds were not included as part of the proposed
1999 CDBG allocation because the City is making a transition to an outside contractor to operate
the CDBG program. CASH does not have the resources to fully administer CDBG for the City,
so staff have been reluctant to parcel out the 1999 programs to several different agencies.
Once a contractor is chosen in May 1999, further discussion with the Council may be needed to
reprogram funds for Emergency Repair. The reprogramming of any single family rehabilitation
funds to Emergency Repair would occur from unspent 1998 single family rehabilitation, a
process consistent with the City’s historical practice for funding the Emergency Repair Program.
This additional allocation will be provided from an existing CDBG program year allocation for
single family housing rehabilitation activities. The County views emergency repair activities for
low-income homeowners as a subset of the CDBG-authorized single family rehabilitation
activity, so there is no requirement for the Council to actual reduce the amount of funds allocated
for single-family rehabilitation.
Staff are working with the County to determine exactly which existing St. Louis Park CDBG
program year will be the source of the additional allocation of $13,500 to the Emergency Repair
Program. It appears, however, that it will most likely come from 1997 CDBG funds currently
allocated for single family rehabilitation.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Joanna Brownstein, Housing Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
73
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $13,500 TO
THE EMERGENCY REPAIR PROGRAM USING URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County have executed a
Subrecipient Agreement, wherein the City agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the
implementation of approved community development activities in the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park and Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
County have executed a Third Party Agreement for the administration of an Emergency Repair
Program; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the allocation of
an additional $13,500 to the Emergency Repair Program and authorizes the Mayor and City
Manager to execute any related amendments to the existing Third Party Agreement with
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin or to enter into a new Third Party Agreement, as
directed by Hennepin County.
Adopted by the City Council on April 19, 1999
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
74
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8h*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
*8h. Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with
Hennepin County
The City is requesting, through Council resolution, to enter into a license
agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of using the portion of
the County’s digitized database that enables production of maps using the
City’s Geographical Information System (GIS).
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution entering into conditional
use license agreement with Hennepin County for use of
Electronic Proprietary Database
Background:
The City’s Geographical Information System (GIS) is a computerized mapping system that
allows for the display of data on various features of parcels, streets, and other land-related
features. Hennepin County maintains the base map that incorporates specific parcel boundaries,
street rights-of-way, and other digitized geographical attributes in the Electronic Proprietary
Database. Because of the proprietary nature of the EPDB, the County requires cities that wish to
use the database to enter into an agreement, which essentially limits use of the EPDB to City
purposes. The County restriction pertains to the computerized code that is used to maintain the
database, so that it is not sold or otherwise disseminated to non-City entities. It does not extend
to products, such as maps, that are developed by the City using its GIS in conjunction with the
EPDB. These may be freely distributed. While this requirement for a formal agreement with the
County is a renewal of the July 20, 1998 agreement, this new agreement does continue to reflect
the actual County-City relationship with respect to use of the EPDB which has been in place for
over 10 years. Other entities that wish to acquire a copy of the County’s EPDB may contact the
County directly.
Attachments:
• Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager, 924-2517
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
75
RESOLUTION NO.____________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A CONDITIONAL USE
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR USE OF THE
ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY DATABASE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Deputy City Manager with respect to the nature and benefits of entering into an agreement with
Hennepin County for use of the Electronic Proprietary Database.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to enter into a Conditional Use
License Agreement with Hennepin County for use of the Electronic Proprietary Database.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
76
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8i*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
*8i. Request for a 60-day extension to record final plat for Excelsior Townhomes
7100-7102 Excelsior Boulevard
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 99-30,
granting 60 day extension for filing of final plat
Background:
On October 6, 1998 the City Council approved the Excelsior Townhomes final plat with
conditions. One condition of approval is that the final plat must be filed with the county for
recording within 60 days of the approval date. On December 7, 1998, the City Council approved
a 90-day extension for filing of the final plat to March 6, 1999. On March 1, 1999 the City
Council approved another 45-day extension to extend the filing deadline to April 20, 1999.
The developer is requesting another 60 day extension to the filing deadline, in order to allow
more time to conduct additional environmental testing that is being required as a condition of
financing the project. Preliminary environmental testing was performed on the property in 1993
and the testing indicated some limited groundwater contamination. The City provided this
information upon request to a potential financier. In order to obtain financing, the developer now
needs to conduct another Phase I Environmental Survey and obtain a letter of no action from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
It is anticipated that there are no environmental issues which would affect development of the
property as approved. State and local agencies including the MPCA were made aware of the
environmental situation in 1993 and made no objections to a very similar project.
The Subdivision Ordinance allows extensions for filing a final plat, provided that a request for
extension has been received prior to the expiration date.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the 60 day extension.
Attachments:
• Amended resolution
• Letter requesting extension from Edina Development Corporation
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
77
RESOLUTION NO.
Amends Resolution No. 98-163
Amends Resolution No. 98-130
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO 98-163 ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 7, 1998
AND
APPROVING FINAL PLAT
WITH CERTAIN VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
OF
EXCELSIOR TOWNHOMES
(Amends Condition F to extend the filing date with Hennepin County to
195 days within final plat approval by the City Council)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Nader Nooryshokry and Edina Development Corporation, owners and subdividers
of the land proposed to be platted as Excelsior Townhomes have submitted an application for
approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the
City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 20, TWP 117, R21 Hennepin County described as beginning at the
Northeast corner of Tract A RLS 1674; thence North 25.00 feet along said East
Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence north 89 degrees
29 minutes 50 seconds west 32.00 feet; thence south 00 degrees 30 minutes 10
seconds west parallel with said East line, a distance of 5.00 feet; thence south
54.00 degrees 28 minutes 15 seconds west 34.00 feet to said Line A; thence south
89 degrees 29 minutes 50 seconds east 59.50 feet along said Line A to the point of
beginning. Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1674, Hennepin County,
Minnesota
78
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Excelsior Townhomes is hereby approved and
accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans
and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota,
subject to the following conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A through D,
such documents incorporated by reference herein.
B. Approval of variances to the Subdivision Regulations to allow 20 foot wide streets on
all but the main access street; allowing dead end streets with no cul de sacs; to permit
easements across the entire Outlots A and B rather than easements around the perimeter
of private internal lots; and to permit grading and tree removal on the site prior to final
plat approval under certain conditions in accordance with the following findings:
a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict applicant of the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land.
b) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is
situated.
c) That the variances are in harmony with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following conditions:
a) Erosion and sediment control plans are to be approved by the City.
b) A letter of credit shall be provided for 125% of the cost of tree replacement.
c) A copy of a permit from the Watershed District approving this project must be
provided to the City.
d) Any site work undertaken prior to recording of the final plat is at the developer’s own
risk. Issuance of a grading permit in no way indicates approval of the final plat, and any
costs incurred, regardless of whether the final plat is approved, are the developer’s. Any
trees removed on the site would be required to be replaced in accordance with the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, regardless of whether the final plat is approved or the project is
built.
D. Prior to any site work other than grading or tree removal, the developer shall meet the
following conditions:
a) The developer shall furnish the City financial security in the form of a cash escrow or
letter of credit. The financial security shall cover at a minimum installation of utilities,
private roads and sidewalks, landscaping, and repair/cleaning of public streets associated
with construction. If the subdivider fails to perform any obligations under the
development contract, the City may apply the security to cure the default.
b) A development agreement, homeowner’s association agreement and declaration of
covenants shall be executed between the developer and the City to ensure that park
dedication and trail fees are paid and all improvements are installed in a timely manner
including utilities, private streets and sidewalks, and landscaping, that public streets are
repaired and cleaned after construction as necessary, parking is prohibited on the private
street system except where designated, and common areas (including wetlands, open
79
space, landscaping, ponds and private streets/sidewalks) are adequately maintained in
perpetuity. Approval of the final plat is contingent upon review and approval of said
documents by the City Attorney.
c) The developer shall reimburse the City for the City attorney’s costs in reviewing
development agreements, declaration of covenants, and Homeowner’s Association
agreement.
E. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
a) Submit to the City a copy of the owner’s policy of title insurance which insures the
City’s interest in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City, covering the
property described in the plat.
b) Submit financial security and execute agreements as stated in D above.
F. Within 195 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the
final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording,
furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing
evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on
disc in an electronic data format.
G. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall comply with the following:
a) Provide to the City evidence of recording of the final plat;
b) Provide to the City evidence that easements or other documents as approved by the
City attorney have been recorded against the property which establish the right to
common
use and ownership of all sidewalks, including those portions which encroach on
individually owned lots within the subdivision.
c) A minimum 20 feet wide, all-weather Class V road surface shall be installed; said road
shall be maintained for emergency access throughout construction on the building lots
included in the final plat; said road shall provide access to all of the building lots from
Excelsior Boulevard.
H. Prior to receiving the first Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall donate 98
diameter inches of overstory and/or evergreen trees to the City for installation on a public
boulevard, park or other public land. The tree species shall be approved by the City
Forester.
I. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each building, park dedication and
trail fees shall collected in the amount of $1,125 per each residential unit.
J. Approval of a building permit is required, including the requirement that fire sprinklers
are
to be included in all townhome units per Fire Department specifications, and any
additional requirements which may be imposed by the building permit.
K. Compliance with the conditions of approval in the resolution approving a Conditional
Use
Permit for the property including required revisions to the plan exhibits (see attached
CUP
resolution).
80
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney
and Certification by the City Clerk as provided for in Sections 14-303(3)(d) and (e) of the
St. Louis Park Ordinance Code.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all
contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and Section 14-303(3)(e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as
required under Section 14-303(3)(e), shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance
therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and
shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
98-19AME/N
81
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8j*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
*8j. 1999 Westwood Hills Nature Center Native Plant Restoration along the
Wildflower Trail
This report considers the acceptance of matching MN DNR grant funds in the amount
of $1,500 to continue with native plant restoration along the Wildflower Trail at
Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the receipt of
funds.
Background: The paved Wildflower Trail at Westwood Hills Nature Center is approximately
1/4- mile in length and provides accessibility to physically-challenged visitors. It features native
woodland, prairie, and wetland plant species. It was constructed in the fall of 1990. In 1997 and
1998, two separate native plant restoration projects have occurred. This is the third restoration
project which will occur in the spring and summer of 1999. The Council approved Resolution
No. 98-55 to apply for these funds from the DNR in March of 1998. This resolution simply
allows the City to accept the money. The City has also applied for funds to continue the
restoration in 2000. The Council approved the year 2000 application at the March 15, 1999
meeting. We will not hear from the DNR whether we will receive funds for the year 2000
application until later this fall.
Financial Considerations: The grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is a
Conservation Partner grant to partially fund the third phase of the restoring the wildflower trail.
The City anticipates this restoration project being accomplished by an Eagle Scout candidate.
The following is a summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources:
Estimated Costs:
Native Wildflower and Fern Purchase $2,500.00
Miscellaneous Expenses 500.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
Revenue Sources
1999 DNR Conservation Partner Grant $ 1,500.00
City funds - Westwood Nature Center 1,000.00
Value of Donated Labor (@$5.00 per hour) 500.00
TOTAL $ 3,000.00
Proposed Improvement Timetable:
Report to City Council April 19, 1999
Restoration Time Frame Spring-Summer 1999
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Doug Langefels, Recreation Program Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
82
RESOLUTION NO._____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS
FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FOR NATIVE PLANT RESTORATION ALONG THE WILDFLOWER
TRAIL AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1999
WHEREAS, the City of St Louis Park applied for a grant through the DNR Conservation
Partners Grant Program per Resolution No. 98-55 by the City Council in March of 1998 for
$1,500 for planting wildflowers at Westwood Hills Nature Center; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is the legal sponsor for the project contained in
the Conservation Partners Grant Program application and has received the matching grant funds
in the amount of $1,500 for planting wildflowers and ferns at Westwood Hills Nature Center; and
WHEREAS, Westwood Hills Nature Center is managed and operated by the City’s
Department of Parks and Recreation; and
WHEREAS, the Recreation Program Manager is the department representative
responsible for coordinating the programs and operations associated with the Nature Center;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Parks and Recreation
for the City of St. Louis Park, is hereby authorized to accept and administer matching grant funds
in the amount of $1,500 from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the 1999
wildflower trail restoration program at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Reviewed for Administration: Approved by City Council April 19, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
83
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8k*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
*8k. 1999 Boardwalk Improvements
This report accepts the bids for the construction of boardwalk improvements at
Westwood Nature Center, awards the project to the lowest bidder and authorizes
the construction of the boardwalk.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve attached Resolution, which designates
Bridgco Manufacturing, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and
authorizes the execution of a contract for the 1999 boardwalk
construction project not to exceed a cost of $102,500.
Background: The Marsh Trail at Westwood Hills Nature Center is approximately 1.6 miles in
length and contains five floating boardwalks as part of the trail system. Four of the boardwalks
were constructed in the late 1970’s and one was constructed in 1987. The four older structures
are now over 20 years old and in need of replacement. The wooden framework of the boardwalk
is deteriorating and continues to require increased maintenance. Parks and Recreation
Department staff applied for and were awarded a matching grant from the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources for $50,000 to replace two of the four boardwalk segments in 1999.
The City has been using H.R. Green as an engineering consultant on this project. The Engineer’s
estimate was $50,000 for the replacement of the two boardwalk sections. As a condition of the
grant, sealed bids were solicited from vendors to supply the steel truss framework and floatation
devices for the two new structures. There were six companies who picked up plans and two bids
were received. The low bid was received from Bridgco Manufacturing, Inc. for $36,281.48. The
engineer has thoroughly discussed the project with Bridgco Manufacturing, Inc., and is confident
that they are capable of completing the project satisfactorily.
In addition to the steel and float materials that were bid out, the project will require the purchase
of lumber and other supplies. Since the additional material components needed to complete the
job will be purchased separately, it is not necessary to bid these items since they do not total
$25,000 individually. We plan to reuse the existing decking. To complete the construction, we
may consider using STS crews as an outside labor source under the direction of maintenance
staff. Our maintenance staff will assist many aspects of the job.
The plan for replacing the other segments will have to be incorporated into the future CIP plan.
The other segments will not be eligible for replacement through a DNR grant at this time because
they are not ADA accessible. ADA accessibility is a requirement in obtaining money from the
DNR.
84
Bid Analysis: There were six firms who obtained bid information for the1999 boardwalk
improvements. Bids were opened Tuesday, March 20, 1999 at the Rec Center. Only two firms
submitted responsive bids, with the amounts shown as follows:
Bridgco Manufacturing $ 36,281.48
Alltech Engineering Corp. $ 55,656
The apparent low bid is $36,281.48 from Bridgco Manufacturing.
Financial Considerations: The Outdoor Recreation Grant will match up to $50,000 of the
expenses incurred in the completion of the project. The project is budgeted as follows:
Estimated Costs:
Consulting Engineering Fees $ 5,600
Steel/Float materials (bid materials) $ 36,281.48
Wood/Hardware materials $ 20,000
Materials for accessible dry land walkways $ 15,000
Outside Labor $ 15,500
Disposal for old materials $ 10,000
TOTAL $ 102,381.48
Revenue Sources:
1999-2000 DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant $ 50,000
Park Improvement Fund $ 52,381.48
TOTAL $ 102,381.48
Proposed Timelines: The majority of the construction will be done during the summer and fall
of 1999. To receive DNR funding, the project must be completed by December 31, 2000.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Doug Langefels, Recreation Program Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
85
RESOLUTION NO._______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING THE PROJECT
AND AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOARDWALK
PROJECT AT THE WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park applied for and received a matching grant in the
amount of $50,000 from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Recreation
Grant Program in November of 1998 for the reconstruction of two sections of boardwalk at the
Westwood Hills Nature Center; and
WHEREAS, the 1999 budget planned to fund the anticipated $50,000- $60,000
necessary to match the DNR grant from the Park Improvement Fund; and
WHEREAS, two sealed bids were received from contractors with Bridgco
Manufacturing, Inc. as the apparent low bidder with a bid of $36,281.48; and
WHEREAS, the consultant engineer from H.R. Green Company, who was hired by the
City of St. Louis Park, is confident that Bridgco Manufacturing, Inc. is a reputable bidder who is
capable of completing the job.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of St. Louis
Park, is hereby authorized to accept the bids, award the project to Bridgco Manufacturing, Inc.
for the amount of $36, 281.48, and authorize the project for the construction of two sections of
boardwalk at the Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
86
Item # 9a*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
March 10, 1999 - 5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg,
Walter Hartman, Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Joanna Brownstein, Tom Harmening,
Nancy Sells, Cindy Stromberg
OTHERS PRESENT: Logene Kobe, League of Women Voters
Carl Lidstrom, Professional Risk Management
Marie Rinta, Accountant, City of St. Louis Park
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Gavzy called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 10, 1999
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the minutes of February 10, 1999.
Commissioner Hartman seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0
with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor. (Note:
Commissioner Row arrived at 5:12 p.m.)
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
a. Insurance Coverage
Mr. Harmening said that the cost of insurance of the recommended proposal is
lower than the past premium. Mr. Lidstrom, the Authority's risk consultant, added
that the values have increased to keep pace with inflation. Mr. Lidstrom said that
the Authority has chosen to purchase a $5 million umbrella liability policy.
87
Commissioner Gavzy asked if it was Mr. Lidstrom's recommendation that the
Authority purchase umbrella coverage in that amount.
Mr. Lidstrom responded that some time ago the Authority board made a decision
to purchase $5 million of umbrella coverage. He said that he recommends that the
Authority continue the practice. He explained that it is a prudent decision for
providing increased coverage for federal claims.
Commissioner Gavzy asked for an example of what kind of federal case would be
covered under the umbrella coverage. Mr. Lidstrom responded that if something
goes to federal court, it would revolve around discrimination. The problem with a
general liability policy is that discrimination cases aren't covered very broadly.
But if an agency doesn't have the umbrella coverage, it would have to use other
sources of funds. Mr. Lidstrom said that it is very difficult to determine coverage
for discrimination claims unless presented with very specific facts. He added that
very small changes in allegations can eliminate coverage and create difficulty. He
said that the policy essentially is providing excess coverage for the vehicle and
general liability including coverage for bodily injury and property damage.
Mr. Harmening said that if the agency didn't have the umbrella, coverage would
be limited to $1 million. The umbrella adds an additional $5 million to that.
Commissioner Gavzy said he wasn't sure if the Authority had held this discussion
previously. He said he believes it is a prudent practice but he would feel more
comfortable knowing what coverage the Authority receives for $2,600 for
umbrella coverage.
Ms. Anderson said that the Authority hadn't discussed the details of coverage
under the umbrella policy, but that the Authority had made the decision five or six
years ago to go from $3 million umbrella to $5 million umbrella.
Mr. Lidstrom said that his general recommendation in dealing with an agency this
size is to have umbrella coverage because the agency doesn't have the capital
resources for particularly large claims.
Commissioner Gavzy asked what the situation is in terms of coverage against
discrimination lawsuits. Mr. Lidstrom responded that it depends exactly how the
allegation is written.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if the Authority has an employment practices liability.
Mr. Lidstrom responded that if there is such coverage it would fall under rider to
the City's errors and omissions policy.
88
Commissioner Gothberg asked what the present coverage includes. Mr. Lidstrom
responded that it is basically a renewal of the existing policy with no changes,
using the same agent and company, and includes an increase in property values.
The total package price decreases by almost $3,000/year.
Commissioner Gavzy said that he is comfortable approving the proposal but
requests further information at the next meeting as to the extent the Authority is
covered against discrimination claims.
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority accept the proposal offered
through the Hanna Agency with Integrity for $10,990 for property, liability and
crime; $799 for automobile; $2,600 for umbrella; and $5,383 for worker's
compensation, with the condition that the insurer provides a cut through
endorsement. Commissioner Hartman seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg,
Hartman and Row voting in favor.
b. Investment Register - Marie Rinta
Mr. Harmening said that Marie Rinta was present to answer questions the
Authority had at the February meeting on the revised investment register. Ms.
Rinta reviewed the report. She explained that she hopes to consolidate checking
accounts from the current eight accounts to three accounts. She explained that
consolidation of money market investments can probably occur as well.
Ms. Rinta reviewed the breakdown of the $400,000 CDs. She asked if the
Authority wants to continue receiving this information. Ms. Rinta said that the
CDs will be maturing at the end of March and typically these would be reinvested.
Mr. Harmening said that he and Ms. Rinta will discuss cash flow needs for the
future, special projects and then invest the funds accordingly.
Ms. Rinta stated that the report as it currently exists isn't an official financial
statement. Mr. Harmening said that Commissioners can be provided with any
kind of information they are interested in receiving.
Commissioner Courtney said that a balance sheet would be more useful for
monthly communication.
Ms. Rinta responded that when the City takes over fee accountant services,
information needed for a balance sheet will be more readily available. She
explained that once that change is made, income statement and balance sheets
would be typical reports.
89
Commissioner Gavzy said that he would like to see a more standard balance sheet
and income expense report on a monthly basis.
Mr. Harmening explained that currently the fee accountant is behind so there is a
lag in the reporting of income and expense information.
Ms. Rinta said that starting in April she can provide an income statement. The
balance sheet information can be provided after the accounting software and
training is in place and the accounting transition is complete.
c. HOME Application - Park Commons - Resolution No. 457
Ms. Brownstein said that as mentioned at the February meeting, staff had explored
this funding and had decided this was a funding source worth pursuing for the
assisted units that are to be included in the first phase of the Park Commons
project. It is the City and Authority's first application to try to seek some gap
financing. Other likely funding sources are federal (Federal Home Loan Bank or
Federal Reserve Bank) or the state Housing Finance Agency.
Ms. Brownstein said staff is asking the Authority to adopt a resolution supporting
submission of an application to Hennepin County for $120,000 in a joint
application of the City and the Authority. The City Council passed a resolution
very similar to this at its last meeting and they were supportive of the application.
She explained that basically 127 units are being discussed with 18 assisted units in
the first phase.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if the 18 assisted units would necessarily be
Authority units.
Ms. Brownstein responded that they are not necessarily Authority units and they
would include Hollman units. The actual number of Hollman units would not
exceed 18 and that the exact number will be a policy decision that the Council
makes. All Hollman units would be Housing Authority units.
Mr. Harmening said that he will do a presentation on Park Commons at the
Authority's April 14 meeting.
Commissioner Hartman suggested that it would be interesting for the board to see
an inventory of funding sources for housing projects.
Mr. Harmening said that Ms. Brownstein could provide a list of sources that are
used to put together complicated housing deals.
Ms. Brownstein commented that there are many potential funding sources and that
every housing deal she's been involved with had at least four to six funding
90
sources. She suggested that another approach would be for staff to better explain
its strategy in what it is hoping to seek for Park Commons and how that fits into
all the available sources.
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority approve Resolution No. 457
supporting an application to Hennepin County for Federal Home Investment
Partnerships Program Funds Submitted jointly by the City and Housing Authority
Application for the Park Commons Project. Commissioner Hartman seconded
the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney,
Gavzy, Gothberg, Hartman and Row voting in favor.
Mr. Harmening reported that there is another application being made for HOME
funds by Project for Pride in Living regarding a Louisiana Court project. The
Council received the project positively and adopted a resolution supporting the
application. The Board can be provided some more information at the next
meeting also, especially considering the proposed inclusion of Hollman units in
that project. All of this is developing somewhat rapidly in preparation for a
March 12 submission date for HOME funds. Their funding application is for
about $350,000.
d. Amendment to Admin. Plan for Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Program
Welfare Sanctions - Resolution No. 458
Mr. Harmening explained that the amendment relates to how rent is calculated as
a result of a cut in benefits related to other programs.
Ms. Stromberg said this is the first of many changes to come out of the Housing
Act from last fall that will need to be implemented.
Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority adopt Resolution No. 458
approving amendments to Chapter 6 of the Administrative Plan for the Section 8
Certificate and Voucher program (amending the Administrative Plan in regards to
the welfare sanctions rule). Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg,
Hartman and Row voting in favor.
e. Section 8 Utility Allowance - Resolution No. 459
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of Resolution No. 459 amending the
Section 8 Utility Allowance Schedule. Commissioner Row seconded the motion,
and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy,
Gothberg, Hartman and Row voting in favor.
f. Contract for Audit for Fiscal Years Ending March 31, 1999, 2000 and 2001
91
Mr. Harmening said that staff expects to have a little more responsiveness from
the firm of Niewedde & Wiens in terms of having the audit completed more
quickly.
Commissioner Hartman moved that the Authority authorize execution of a three-
year contract with Niewedde & Wiens to perform the financial audit for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1999 at a fee of $1,725; the fiscal year ending March 31,
2000 at a fee of $1,750; and the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 at a fee of
$1,775. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Hartman and Row
voting in favor.
g. Fee Accountant Contract Extension
Mr. Harmening said that the extension relates to obtaining new accounting
software and training before the accounting transition can be completed. He said
his goal is to have the City Finance Dept. undertake all accounting work as of July
1. He said the Authority needs to keep an arrangement with Kopsa in the
meantime to fulfill the full accounting functions that are needed.
Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority approve an amendment to the
current contract with the fee accountant extending the contract beyond the original
termination date of March 31, 1999, at the same fee with the understanding that
the Authority will give the accountant a 30-day notice for termination of the
contract consistent with the provisions in the current contract. Commissioner
Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Hartman and Row voting in favor.
h. Pest Control Contract
Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority approve a contract with
Plunkett's Pest Control for pest control services at Hamilton House at a quarterly
fee of $112.50 beginning April 1, 1999, and terminating on March 31, 2001.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Hartman and Row voting in
favor.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 99-3
Commissioner Hartman moved approval of Claims List No. 99-3 in the amount of
$163,396.42. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion and the motion
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg,
Hartman and Row voting in favor.
92
b. Communications
(1) Monthly Report for March, 1999
The report was accepted and filed.
(2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House Update
Ms. Anderson reported that she is currently working on four lease
terminations at Hamilton House.
(3) Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program Update
Ms. Brownstein said that the Authority purchased the Georgia Ave.
property and the two Rhode Island properties since the February meeting.
She reported that it is very likely that the Authority will sell the corner lot
to the EDA or City or directly to the resident being relocated from Park
Commons. Ms. Brownstein said that the 1454 Jersey Ave. property that
she has mentioned to the Authority several times over the last year has
resurfaced and the owner is interested in selling. She said that staff will be
sending out bid packages very soon for the 3405 Rhode Island and 2808
Georgia lots.
Ms. Brownstein reported that construction will start April 1 on the rehab
Habitat house located at 2937 Maryland Ave.
(4) Y2K
Mr. Harmening reported that the City has been quite active in planning for
Y2K and that Authority staff has been involved in monitoring its
properties for Y2K compliance.
(5) Reorganization Update
Mr. Harmening reported that the process is underway. Interviews for a
housing secretary will begin the week of March 15. The Housing
Supervisor position is open until April 2, and the opening has been widely
promoted.
(6) Other
Mr. Harmening reported that contact was made with the organization
which had experienced difficulty with the accounting software the
93
Authority wants to purchase. Ms. Apfelbacher learned that the problem
wasn't with the software package but rather with the conversion of data.
Mr. Harmening said that in March the City Council approved a $10,000
allocation from CDBG funds for TRAILS which means that the program
has another year of funding through monies from public housing, a HUD
grant, and the CDBG allocation.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Gothberg moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Hartman and Row voting in
favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Walter Hartman
Secretary
94
Item # 9b*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 17, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick,
Ken Gothberg, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Vice-Chair Bissonnette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of February 24, 1999
Mr. Garelick moved approval of Minutes of February 24, 1999 and the motion passed on
a vote of 3-0-2 with Garelick, Gothberg, and Velick voting in favor and Bissonnette and
Carver abstaining.
Jerry Timian arrived.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 99-6-PUD -- Request of Belt Line Industrial Park Inc. for Preliminary
Plat and Planned Unit Development for Belt Line Industrial Park
Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate reported that the applicant submitted a written
request to table the request.
Vice-Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing.
With no one wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Bissonnette closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Carver moved to table the request and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with
Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Timian and Velick voting in favor.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
95
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 99-5-CUP Request of Ted Bigos (TBI Partnership) for an
amendment to a Continued Special Permit to permit an additional 45 unit
apartment building for property zoned R-4 Multiple Family Residential
located at 1351 Hampshire Avenue.
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a staff report and concluded
with a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the amendment to a Continued Special Permit for an
additional 45 unit apartment building subject to three conditions in the
staff report.
Mr. Carver asked if the other apartment buildings on Hampshire were
subject to the condition that they should connect to a collector or arterial
street or not generate significant traffic on local residential streets.
Ms. Erickson stated this was added as a condition of conditional use
permit approval for multi-family housing, and that this requirement did not
exist prior to 1992.
Mr. Gothberg asked if there is a sidewalk along Hampshire Avenue.
Ms. Peterson indicated that there is no sidewalk along Hampshire.
Ms. Velick asked what the Fire Department requirements are.
Ms. Peterson stated that the only remaining Fire Department requirement
is for the plans to show a lock box near the rear entrance to the apartments.
Ms. Velick stated she thought this is important because the area is
congested.
Mr. Gothberg concurred with Ms. Velick about the congestion and said he
believes a sidewalk along Hampshire Avenue would be worthwhile to
facilitate pedestrians moving around safely.
Clifford King, 1455 Hampshire Avenue, questioned on which side of the
street the sidewalk should be placed. One side is already blocked off for
parking; you are only allowed to park on the west side of Hampshire.
There is no parking in the cul-de-sac but because the City has not marked
it, people park there. He is concerned that the street could be narrowed or
that the parking in front of the apartment building could be reduced to
meet the green space requirements.
96
Ms. Peterson clarified the site changes that are proposed to meet open
space requirments, and stated that no parking would be removed, and the
street would not be narrowed, as part of the open space plan or to provide
a sidewalk.
Mr. King asked if there would be any changes to the trees along the
boulevard and stated that the owner has removed several trees from the
property.
Ms. Peterson referred this question to Ted Bigos, the owner.
Mr. King stated that the owner had cut many trees down on his property to
build the apartments, which has left nothing to buffer the noise from the
highway. There is only a small green space left for a playground. He said
he is concerned about the lowering of the water level in the ponds due to
the construction of the apartments.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that if the Planning Commission would like to make a
recommendation regarding a sidewalk on Hampshire, they should look at
the impact on trees. The tree replacement ordinance does not require trees
that are diseased or storm damaged to be replaced, but would require it if
trees are removed for construction purposes including a sidewalk.
Norm Cole, architect representing the owner, offered an alternative option
for providing green space near the new apartment building and not
disturbing the area next to Hampshire Avenue.
Mr. King stated that when homeowners remove diseased trees they usually
replace them.
Ted Bigos, owner, explained that evergreen trees were added to both of his
properties to replace diseased trees and maintain landscaping. He
commented that the playground is not used since tenants are young
professionals and not families.
Mr. Garelick asked if the new building being proposed is comparable to
the property just described.
Mr. Bigos stated that this is the case and that the area is geared for the
young professional, not families.
John White, resident on Hampshire Avenue, stated he is concerned about
the removal of trees and amount of traffic going south on Hampshire
Avenue. He does not see green space in the plan.
97
Ms. Peterson reviewed the site plan and explained the green space area.
Mr. White said he is concerned with the children playing in the busy street.
Ken Nelson, resident on Hampshire Avenue, stated he is concerned with
the fast moving traffic both north and south on Hampshire and the safety
of the driveway entrances near the culdesac.
Mr. King explained the background on why he petitioned for the existing
trail which runs along the south side of the cul-de-sac.
Vice-Chair Bissonnette stated that the City should look at the landscaping
and trees in the cul-de-sac.
Mr. King recommended maintaining the landscaping on the cul-de-sac to
block the glare of headlights towards residents.
Ms. Jeremiah asked if sidewalks in this area were designated a priority by
the trail and sidewalk study.
Ms. Erickson, stated that the Trail and Sidewalk Plan calls for sidewalks
on every street that is part of the grid pattern in St. Louis Park, which
includes Hampshire Avenue, and that a sidewalk to the frontage road
sounds like a good idea.
Mr. King asked if a bus stop could be placed at the end of Hampshire
Avenue.
Vice-Chair Bissonnette stated that issue would have to be addressed with
the MTC.
Marge Romero, 1348 Hampshire Avenue, stated that as a homeowner she
is concerned about the traffic congestion with the high number of units of
housing in a small area and the noise level of area highways and
businesses. She is in favor of affordable housing and is curious what the
rents would be in the proposed building.
Mr. Garelick asked what Ms. Romero would recommend as a solution to
the problem of noise.
Ms. Romero said she wished that Prestige Lincoln Mercury would be a
better neighbor. She explained that trees in the area that served as a
buffer to the noise have been removed in the past and also suggested extra
attention by the police department is needed with traffic control.
98
Vice-Chair Bissonnette stated that there are certain noise level limits and
noise must be reduced if it exceeds these limits.
Norm Cole, architect representing the owner, stated that there may be an
alternative location for a new walking path. He stated that he has a
concern with the intense landscaping required on the property as it borders
the office building (east property line). He is concerned with the drainage
and survivability of the plants given the density and asked if the
opportunity exists to locate plants elsewhere on the site.
Ms. Peterson recommended looking at alternatives with the applicant.
Mr. Garelick asked if the landscaping being considered is aesthetic or
designed to take care of noise problems.
Ms. Peterson stated that the requirement of Bufferyard F is the most dense
and proposed because the building abuts office development which is
considered an intensive land use relative to the proposal.
Mr. Garelick asked why there is no buffering proposed on Hampshire to
help with sound proofing.
Ms. Peterson explained that there are no additional landscape or bufferyard
requirements for the west side of the apartment proposal, but believes it
would be helpful to review current landscaping relative to the original
landscape plan.
Mr. Garelick explained how the political climate on trees has changed
since 1992 and there is now more consideration for trees.
Mr. King commented on a study he conducted of crime in area that is
attributed to these buildings. He said that 30% of calls in the
neighborhood are for the existing apartment buildings.
Mr. Garelick inquired about the nature of the crimes.
Mr. King briefly described the nature of crimes saying that gangs are
coming to the buildings. Additional discussion ensued, which clarified
that the expensive cars at the apartment building are attractive to criminals.
There is no known problem with criminals living at the apartments.
Mr. Carver asked if the City had approved any apartment proposals since
the time that the condition related to location on a collector or arterial
street was placed in the ordinance.
99
Ms. Peterson stated that the Inglewood apartments were approved since
that time.
Mr. Carver asked for the definition of “significant traffic” that is part of
the conditions of approval.
Ms. Peterson stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies acceptable
traffic level ranges for different types of streets such as collectors,
arterials, and local streets. She did not have specific traffic level
information for Hampshire Avenue. She noted that the Public Works
department reviewed and accepted the proposal. She stated that the
average traffic for the apartment building is 6 trips per day per unit.
Mr. White asked if the City could look into traffic counts for the area.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that all development proposals are reviewed by
appropriate departments in the City to identify issues and concerns that
they have regarding their area of expertise. Public Works reviews traffic
impacts and does not have any concerns with this proposal. The Police
Department has also accepted the proposal.
Mr. White recommended the placement of speed bumps.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that different traffic calming methods could be
evaluated and recommendations made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Garelick stated he is concerned about the crime rates and questioned
the responsibility of the owner.
Ted Bigos, owner of the property, stated he is not aware of any crime
problems and is confused about the information and indicated that these
are not run down apartment buildings.
Mr. King reviewed the crime report.
Ms. Peterson indicated that she reviewed the crime report and stated that
the Elliot and Blackstone neighborhoods do tend to have a higher rate of
crime in the City and the police are initiating efforts to reduce crime in
these areas. She explained that in these neighborhoods last year, 68% of
the calls were for commercial properties, 20% for apartment buildings and
12% for single family homes.
Vice-Chair Bissonnette suggested getting back to the issues of the
amendment.
100
Ms. Velick stated she is is concerned about traffic and noise levels with
more apartment units being added and asked what the Planning
Commission could do to help abate the noise. She also asked if the
Lincoln Prestige Mercury could look at a noise barrier and hours of
operation.
Mr. Carver stated he does not believe the issues related to the car
dealership relate to this request and said the Planning Commission should
keep focused on the amendment to the Continued Special Permit. The
issues should be taken to the proper City department.
Mr. Carver moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the
Continued Special Permit subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
Mr. Gothberg added the recommendation that staff look closely at the
potential to add a sidewalk along Hampshire Avenue.
Vice-Chair Bissonnette recommended that staff look at the landscaping
that is proposed by the building to see if it could be redistributed in some
fashion along Hampshire.
Mr. Garelick clarified that from a real-estate standpoint these buildings are
good real-estate and the crime mentioned is not the fault of the landlord.
Vice-Chair Bissonnette called the question and the motion passed on a
vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Timian and
Velick voting in favor.
ii. Case No. 99-4-ZA -- Amendment to Zoning Ordinance -- “RC” District
and Definitions - “Live-Work”
Ms. Jeremiah presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments
to the “R-C” District and a new definition for “live-work units”.
Mr. Gothberg asked, related to Condition “12h” where conditions a-g can
be waived if the development is in conformance with an adopted
redevelopment plan (page 128), if staff feels that development plans are
reviewed in enough detail to ensure that nothing gets overlooked.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that she believes the review process is adequate.
Mr. Gothberg asked staff if Condition “c” related to not including
restaurants, convention facilities or food service as another primary use on
the same site with a hotel/motel (page 131) is overly restrictive.
101
Ms. Jeremiah stated she would discuss this issue with the Inspections
Department.
In response to a request from Ms. Velick to explain the difference between
the high density district and the R-4 zoning for the proposed apartment
complex, Ms. Jeremiah clarified the density differences.
Mr. Timian asked if this amendment provided for more move-up housing.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that it allows for move-up housing, but the issue of
living units being a certain income level is not addressed.
In response to a question from Mr. Timian on whether or not move-up
housing is a goal of the City, Ms. Jeremiah indicated that move-up
housing is a goal of the City. She defined move-up housing as stated in
Vision St. Louis Park including a demand for townhomes, market rate
rental and improvements to existing single family homes.
Mr. Carver questioned why the revised statute states “up to 50 or 75
units”.
Ms. Jeremiah explained the recent amendment to the PUD ordinance and
said that it could actually be stated that generally up to 50 units, except
where permitted by PUD, if this is preferable to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Timian left at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Carver asked if the definition of “live-work units” is based on a
definition from some other jurisdiction.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that other jurisdictions looked at “live-work units” as
separate entities through Building Code provisions so the City was not
able to find a comparable definition.
Mr. Carver asked on what grounds would other uses be potentially
excluded.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that other uses may be excluded by the language in the
actual zoning district.
Mr. Carver questioned whether there should be some general language
included which would capture the concept items that may be hazardous to
health and welfare.
102
Ms. Jeremiah stated that this is a good suggestion and, if other Planning
Commissioners agreed, she would add language to the section which states
that “businesses can’t substantially alter the exterior of the property or
substantially affect the character of the neighborhood, or detract from the
health, welfare and safety of the residents”.
Mr. Gothberg asked where a massage therapist would fit in. Ms. Jeremiah
stated this would be possible under the “live-work” definition also.
Mr. Garelick moved to recommend that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to amend the “R-C” Multiple Family Residential District and to
adopt a definition for “live-work units” to better reflect Comprehensive
Plan goals. The motion passed 5-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick,
Gothberg and Velick voting in favor.
iii. Comprehensive Plan Chapters - Discussion and Comments
Mr. Garelick complimented Ms. Erickson on the logical format of the Plan
by Neighborhood section.
• Transportation
Mr. Gothberg recommended including language related to the addition of
bicycle lanes and addition of the word “vehicular” to the map on Page 119
referring to deficiencies.
Ms. Erickson indicated that the map only includes current deficiencies and
did not take into account any growth projections.
Mr. Gothberg recommended including bike lanes as a variety in the design
guidelines and standards on page 131.
Mr. Gothberg recommended review of the railroad section and addition of
some language relative to the Comprehensive Plan and vacant railroad
corridors.
Ms. Peterson noted that the existing and projected traffic flow maps are
identical.
Ms. Jeremiah recommended that typical traffic of local residential streets
and collector streets be factored in.
• Economic Growth & Employment
103
Mr. Garelick asked if the City has someone in charge of bringing
additional large employers to the area.
Ms. Erickson stated that the Economic Development Coordinator works
diligently with existing employers and potential interested businesses who
contact him, but does not actively pursue businesses that are located
outside of St. Louis Park
Mr. Garelick inquired about the recent addition of Japs Olson. Ms.
Erickson commented on the process of accommodating Japs Olson and
stated there were no tax incentives involved. Ms. Jeremiah commented on
tax increment financing and suggested the Planning Commission may
want an update from Dave Anderson, Economic Development
Coordinator.
• Redevelopment
Mr. Garelick asked for clarification of the small pocket of deterioration of
housing units noted on page 2.
Ms. Erickson explained the condition diagnosis on housing stock that
identifies these types of units on page 6.
Mr. Garelick asked if these are violations under the City’s ordinances or
are they cosmetic situations. Ms. Erickson referred to the table on page 5.
Mr. Gothberg referred to Oak Park Village on Page 13 and suggested it
would be better to minimize the original plan and use the new plan to
avoid confusion. Ms. Erickson indicated that this is a good point and
suggested the elimination of pages 4 and 16.
Mr. Gothberg referred to Park Commons and suggested including figures
based on the original charrette.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that these are the adopted redevelopment plans and
added to the Comprehensive Plan and that any substantial changes to the
plans would require an amendment.
• Plan By Neighborhood
Mr. Gothberg referred to the description of the Kilmer neighborhood and
the need for clarification of the location of vacant land.
Mr. Garelick stated that this chapter is very appealing and asked if it could
be made available to realtors.
104
Mr. Gothberg referred to Pennsylvania Park (U29) and stated that the
description of 16th Street is misleading as it is not a through street.
Mr. Gothberg referred to the Blackstone Neighborhood and questioned the
open space guided as commercial.
Ms. Erickson explained the preliminary PUD approved for retail and
stated that the residential neighborhood prefers residential. Ms. Jeremiah
stated that when the commercial designation was adopted for that property
there was some discussion on the City’s desire for mixed use on that
property and recommended carrying that language over.
Mr. Garelick questioned whether expectations of the Ryan Development
have been met. Staff briefly commented on the status of the area
businesses.
Mr. Gothberg referred to the Lenox neighborhood and questioned the
designated use and density related to the school parking lot and asked if it
is medium density residential or civic. Ms. Erickson stated that it is
guided Civic.
Ms. Erickson encouraged the Planning Commission to call with additional
comments or questions.
Mr. Gothberg thanked Ms. Erickson and staff for pulling together a super
job on the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - March 1 and March 15, 1999
Ms. Peterson gave a brief overview of City Council’s decision to approve the
drive-through bank at Quenten and Excelsior Boulevard. After the Planning
Commission considered the request, SRF further studied the traffic in the area
and confirmed that the traffic increase is within required ranges. She stated that
the project met all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. City Council
encouraged residents to monitor traffic and if it is different than what had been
projected, the City could address the issue. Vice-Chair Bissonnette stated that the
Park Commons Task Force recently received a dopy of the drive-through survey.
Ms. Jeremiah stated these actions could guide future development and the
proposed amendment to the MX District.
7. Miscellaneous - None
8. Adjournment
105
Vice-Chair Bissonnette adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by: Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
106
Item # 9d*
April 9, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A V SOLUTIONS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 72.60
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,077.84
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.31
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 158.00
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.75
ANDERSON, ALBERT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.00
ANDERSON, BERNIECE F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105.88
ANDERSON, DELORES A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.00
ANDERSON, MARY M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
ANDREASEN, RUBY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 2,011.68
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 515.54
ASPLUND COFFEE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.00
BAKER, RUTH S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111.50
BARON, EILEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 233.98
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.82
BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 158.04
BELL, HEIDI SKATING LESSONS 50.00
BENSON, MAXENE L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
BERTHENE, SANDRA MAY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 122.00
BIERMA, SHIRLEY P PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 484.07
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 48.21
BRAAS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 164.91
BRATLAND, ROSEMOND L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWN, JOSEPH P PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
BUSH, MARTIN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BUSKEY, JENNIFER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 66.63
BYRD, KATHLEEN M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 107.50
CAMPBELL, CHAD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 57.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 840.27
CARLSON, DONALD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,580.00
CATO, KAREN J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.50
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,589.00
COLOR TILE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,444.01
CONDON, DORA E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
COORDINATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS L OFFICE SUPPLIES 79.00
CORCORAN, MARGARET A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 137.75
CORNELIUS, JANE M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
COUNTRY FLAGS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 71.16
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.00
DEANE, BETTY ZIMMERMAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
DELEGARD TOOL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (65.54)
107
DISRUD, EMMA B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
DUNLAP, REG GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.78
DVORAK, BRAD GENERAL SUPPLIES 136.80
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 35.00
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.19
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,276.88
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.00
EVERS, VIRGINIA A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
EXPLORER POST 505 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,500.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 38.00
FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00
FLATTEN, ANNA J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 99.13
FRESHMAN, WENDY ADULT ATHLETICS 22.00
GALBRAITH, ARDIS V PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 2,520.00
GARBINA'S DELI & SANDWICH SHOP MEETING EXPENSE 30.03
GARDNER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 2,095.92
GARLAND'S INC. NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,548.35
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,333.82
GRIMSRUD, TOM MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 7.15
GROVE, HENRY R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 156.25
GUSEK, MARY V PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
HACH COMPANY DEPOSITS PAYABLE 34.15
HALLMAN OIL LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 108.44
HANSON, ROBERT C INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
HARMON FULL SERVICE GROUP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 341.00
HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 4,884.50
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 5,754.18
HOLDAHL COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 269.09
HOLIDAY INN MPLS WEST LIQUOR, INTOX-ON SALE 2,505.00
HOLLAND, DAVID OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 198.00
HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.01
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.75
HOPKINS COMMUNITY EDUCATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 234.50
HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 226.26
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 515.46
ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 18.95
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 50.00
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,251.07
INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 27.26
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 396.54
INST. FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 325.00
INTERNATIONAL ASSN OF FIRE CHI SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 95.00
JAMES, VIOLET MARIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
JOHNSON, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 222.00
JOHNSON, MILDRED F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 81.25
JONES, JEANNE M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
108
KAISER, CINDY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 67.28
KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN NOTES PAYABLE 1,994.31
KARNITZ, ESTHER L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.25
KARNITZ, MARVIN E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111.50
KARWACKI, CINDY PROGRAMMING 11.00
KOBE, LOGENE R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105.88
KOEPCKE, NEIL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 198.00
KOHAN, GEORGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
KOHS, STEVE TOWING FEES 537.50
KOLBERG, EDMERE G PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 102.63
KRECH, BARBARA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 36.72
LACHER, PETER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
LAIDERMAN, NESSA L PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 132.50
LAIRD, MARILYN W PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
LAPRAY, JAMI A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 102.63
LAUER, DAN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 17.23
LAWLESS, AGNES F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
LIBBY, DIANE G PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
LIBERMAN, JULIE POSTAGE 195.58
LINDER, JUANITA M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
LITSEY, DAVID M. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.00
LITSEY, MEREDITH G PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE/PAINT PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.76
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC MOTOR FUELS 74.38
LYNCH, DEBRA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 25.68
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 761.52
MAIER, JOHN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.50
MARTENS, BRENDA R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 130.25
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 450.00
MC BRIDE, KATHLEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 170.74
MC CULLUM, DORIS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 14,164.15
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 4,158.00
MILLERBERND, DENNIS GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.12
MINN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 37.07
MN DEPT OF HEALTH LICENSES/TAXES 150.00
MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.00
MN FAIR HOUSING CENTER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.00
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 144.94
MORIARTY, MATT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 198.00
MORRIS, GLORIA M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
MOXHAM, FLORENCE F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
MURPHY, KATHY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 138.78
MUSZYNSKI, MARY ANN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
MUTEC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 60.00
NALEZNY, LOIS C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
NELSON, DOROTHY C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 118.50
NERHEIM, CONSTANCE J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 92.63
109
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 325.00
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 66.18
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,666.96
NUTTING, AVONNE B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.21
OLSON, FERDA C PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112.13
ORTNER, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 104.33
OTTERBLAD, PATRICIA D PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 68.79
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (37.50)
PETERSON, SACHA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 11.50
PHELPS, LYNN PROGRAMMING 8.00
POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES 386.28
POOLE, NILA F PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 104.25
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 5,650.45
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.57
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 114.44
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 56.60
R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 795.50
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (74.89)
RAINBOW FOODS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 123.75
RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 118.27
RHEINHART, ETHEL M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105.88
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS (57.48)
ROGALLA, ANGELA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC MEETING EXPENSE 10.68
ROLAND, DOLORES A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 113.25
ROSEDALE DODGE MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 19,102.00
ROSS, LOUISE W PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111.50
RYKS, MARGERY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.00
SALONEK, MYRON MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 38.68
SANTEE, HARRIET E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
SCHOEN, LOUIS S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.42
SMITH-SHARPE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 227.06
SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MGM SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 640.24
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 360.13
STEPNICK, BRUCE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 9.75
STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 49.11
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,670.67
STROMSETH, KATHERINE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.00
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 204.56
SUSSEL GARAGES BUILDING 230.67
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 76.25
TANK RE-NU OF MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 129.95
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 276.00
TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 162.80
TULKKI, MARK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
110
TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 204.29
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 25.00
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 722.09
UHL CO INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 150.00
ULBRICHT, ROBERT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 198.00
UNITED AD LABEL GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.28
URBAN LAND INSTITUTE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 66.95
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 172.48
VOELKER, STACY M MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 9.56
VOSS, HEATHER GENERAL SUPPLIES 441.03
WALDOR PUMP COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 616.85
WARDELL, GARY R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 128,258.23
WATER ENGINEERING & MGMT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 36.00
WELCH, RITA M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 97.50
WELTER, DOROTHY M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.25
WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 3,869.42
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.58
WOOLSEY, JOYCE E PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 95.88
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,157.25
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 427.91
ZEP MANUFACTURING CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 782.48
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 133.30
263,383.74
APRIL 16, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ACT ELECTRONICS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 469.13
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 464.47
ADVANCED STATE SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 214.70
AHLGREN CONSTRUCTION CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 91.62
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 480.39
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,145.00
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 970.91
APPLE PRINTING AND SECRETARIAL PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,497.39
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 506.99
BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 107.57
BAKKE KOPP BALLOU & MC FARLIN ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,166.61
BARNES & NOBLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 170.00
BEACON BALLFIELDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,376.00
BEARCOM RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 453.70
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 25.67
BOLLIG AND SONS DEPOSITS PAYABLE 500.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWNSTEIN, JOANNA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 286.38
CAMILON, MANNY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 39.97
111
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 340.76
CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.65
CLARKLIFT OF MINNESOTA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 616.46
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,478.63
CRILEY, KATHI L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 78.73
CROWN FENCE & WIRE CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.11
CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER GENERAL SUPPLIES 93.86
DAHLQUIST, ROHLAND INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DARTEK COMPUTER SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.63
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 85.00
DAVIS, SHELLEY YOUTH RECREATION 22.00
DAYTON'S/TARGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.46
DELEGARD TOOL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (65.54)
DELMAR FURNACE EXCHANGE HEATING 39.00
DOVER RESTAURANT MEETING EXPENSE 118.22
DUNLAP, REG MEETING EXPENSE 39.04
EDINA REALTY RELOCATION GENERAL CUSTOMERS 81.70
EGAN OIL CO LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 127.24
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.87
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 29.94
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 180.00
G & K SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS 26.54
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 527.13
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 911.70
GOPHER SIGN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,542.12
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 370.00
GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 36.00
HASLERUD, CARRIE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 35.75
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,799.14
HEALTH SERVICES NORTH AMERICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 401.28
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 136.91
HENN CO TREASURER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,804.84
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 7,678.89
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 446.34
HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 51.39
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 184.42
HORNIG, DAVID GENERAL CUSTOMERS 149.67
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 2,475.75
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5,646.70
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.50
INTERSTATE BEARING COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 798.70
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,078.85
IPMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00
J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 597.50
J BENSON CONSTRUCTION CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,212.54
112
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.63
JACOBS, JEFF TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 314.13
JOLLEY, PETER A GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.28
JONES, MICHAEL J INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 41.41
KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43
KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 10.40
KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 261.02
KNOX, BETSY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 7.48
LAGERQUIST CORPORATION BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 600.00
LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16
LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 42.41
LINSK FLOWERS MEETING EXPENSE 62.58
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 78.31
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 838.08
MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,915.16
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 661.50
MC GLYNN'S MEETING EXPENSE 55.85
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 113.31
METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 978.41
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 248,722.12
METROCALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 302.77
MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 712.00
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1,418.73
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 3,192.29
MINN STATE TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 3,438.71
MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.00
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 16,927.25
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 537.55
MN CHAPTER OF AIIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 20.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 440.00
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 50.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,072.83
MONTGOMERY WARDS #2531 GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.89
MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH/FAMILY SUP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 63.20
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 273.29
MUNICI-PALS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 290.00
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 596.29
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 59,163.31
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 444.40
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 241.07
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46
ORTNER, MARK TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 146.15
P & L AUTOMOTIVE INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 105.00
PALMS BAKERY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6.74
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00
PARKLYNN BUILDERS COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,557.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 29.45
113
PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.92
PEWAG INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 515.68
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 175.73
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.10
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 188.30
PROJECT PATHFINDER INC MEETING EXPENSE 75.00
PUMP & METER SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 105.65
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 786.99
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (74.89)
RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 105.36
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.90
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS (57.48)
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 87.32
SCHWARTZ, LYNN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 62.72
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16.89
SMITH MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.50
SMITH, TERESA M MISCELLANEOUS 9.00
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 34.54
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 2,758.60
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.91
STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 324.83
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,164.46
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 109.62
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 269.81
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 861.40
TAKE & BAKE MEETING EXPENSE 75.00
TENNANT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 159.00
THOMPSON, LINDA YOUTH RECREATION 66.00
THYMES TWO CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 195.71
TIMBER CREST CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 26,100.00
TKDA ENGINEERING SERVICES 3,234.37
TMS JOHNSON INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 69.23
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 280.00
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,572.65
VIKING BUSINESS INTERIORS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 83.92
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 288.34
VOSS, HEATHER GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.07
WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 834.57
WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,437.50
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.62
WILKINS PONTIAC GENERAL CUSTOMERS 425.36
WONG, LORRI GENERAL CUSTOMERS 15.36
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 436.95
464,407.97
APRIL 14, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
114
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68
ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 82,068.54
BECK, ULRIC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25.00
BERG, LEON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25.00
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00
FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,744.79
GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,431.00
HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 157,804.17
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,271.29
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00
MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 436.12
MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 998.00
MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INSURANC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,326.10
MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 450.03
MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,640.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 97,903.71
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 45,270.87
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,335.13
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 8,476.63
SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 29,823.85
THOMAS & SONS CONST OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 6,122.02
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 347.35
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,093.07
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,348.46
WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP INSURA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 68.12
467,006.91
APRIL 14, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 388.49
PAULOUSKI, WADE INJURY PAY 99.80
PDR HOPKINS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 963.08
SEDGEWICK MANAGED CARE WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 9.50
WINIECKI, MARK WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 191.69
1,652.56
115
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a
Meeting of April 19, 1999
11a. Contract with West Suburban Mediation Center
Contract for mediation services with outside service provider
Recommended
Action:
Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute a one-year
contract with West Suburban Mediation Center for
mediation, conciliation, information and referral, and public
education services.
Background
West Suburban Mediation Center has provided mediation and dispute resolution services for
over fifteen years within the Hennepin County suburban area. The City has contracted with the
West Suburban Mediation Center for over ten years based on annual requests similar to other not
for profit organizations (e.g.; Sojourner, S.T.E.P., Corner House, Historical Society, Senior
Community Services, Community Band, others).
The Mediation Center provides four types of services: mediation, conciliation, public education
and information/referral. Both sides meet with trained mediators to decide on a mutually
acceptable solution. The premise of the program is that citizens are capable of identifying their
problems and resolving differences between them. Through these services, the Mediation Center
addresses the need of community members for efficient and fair alternatives for dispute
resolution. Using mediation to resolve conflicts enables people to work towards building
healthy, peaceful neighborhoods and stronger communities.
Through trained volunteer mediators, the Mediation Center helps resolve disputes for a variety of
parties, including: neighbors, family members, businesses / consumers, employers / employees,
and landlords / tenants. The Center also mediates juvenile issues such as vandalism, shoplifting,
harassment, truancy, runaways, assault, theft, and intra-family conflicts. In addition, the Center
offers victim / offender mediation, based on principles of Restorative Justice, as well as
community presentations, facilitation services, and conflict resolution training.
Analysis
The following summarizes the number of individuals served by the Center, cases worked, and
cases specifically involving St. Louis Park community members.
116
Individuals # Cases St. Louis Park
Served Worked #Cases City Funding
1998 1,717 555 12 $3,900
1997 2,331 657 21 $3,900
1996 1,940 642 20 $3,900
1995 2,597 752 38 $3,900
1994 2,582 670 56 $3,900
1993 2,108 563 25 $3,900
1992 1,363 317 26 $3,900
Attachment A summarizes the types of cases handled by the Mediation Center, case dispositions
and the Center’s funding sources and expenses for 1996. As indicated in the attachment, the
majority (75%) of the case referrals are from the Housing Court. The Mediation Center currently
does not charge for its services, with a few minor exceptions, and relies on funding primarily
from various governmental agencies (see Attachment A for listing). It is also worth noting that
over 80% of the cases are successfully resolved either through mediation, arbitration, or
conciliation.
Mediation Center’s cases generally average five hours of service per adult and eight hours per
juvenile. The Mediation Center has indicated for 1999 that it will cost approximately $42 per
hour to operate the programs. Based on these estimates and the City’s current funding level of
$3,900, the estimated “break even” number of St. Louis Park cases is 19. Based on the historical
usage by St. Louis Park community members (i.e. average of 31 cases for the last 6 years), it is
recommended that no changes be made to the current funding level.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract to continue to fund the
West Suburban Mediation Center in the amount of $3,900 for 1999 for services to St. Louis Park
community members. West Suburban Mediation Center and the City Attorney have reviewed
this contract.
It is also recommended that the City continue to help publicize the Mediation Centers services to
St. Louis Park community members and refer cases as appropriate.
Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments:
Attachment A, West Suburban Mediation Center Summary of Cases and Funding Sources
Contract with West Suburban Mediation Center
117
Attachment A
WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER
SUMMARY OF CASES AND FUNDING SOURCES
Types Of Cases
(Opened This Period) 1998
Housing court
(landlord/tenant)
390
Landlord/tenant-other 10
Juvenile (e.g.
vandalism)
57
Neighbor disputes 31
City/resident 4
Human rights 5
Business/consumers 18
Employer/employee 6
Intra-family 9
Co-parenting 6
Visitation/expeditor 15
Other 4
Total 555
Funding Sources 1998
State of MN $33,333
Hennepin County $21,000
Bloomington $2,175
Eden Prairie $2,500
Edina $800
Hopkins $2,750
Minnetonka $3,500
Plymouth $4,000
Richfield $3,500
St. Louis Park $3,900
McKnight Foundation $10,000
Other sources $3,858
Total $91,316
Case dispositions
(Closed this period) 1998
Mediated/ agreement reached 419
Mediated/ no agreement 61
Conciliated/ resolved 19
Mediated/ arbitrated 2
One or more parties refused 61
Total 563
Expenses 1998
Executive Director $23,400
Case Developer $26,000
Payroll Taxes/
Benefits
$6,696
Conf. fees/Dues/Bank
charges
$471
Mileage and Parking $355
Rent $14,567
Telephone $2,893
Supplies $497
Postage/Printing/Copy $2,500
Annual meeting $1,642
Training $500
Equipment $3,600
Technical Assistance $2,048
Legal/Accounting $1,618
Depreciation $810
Insurance $742
Misc. $507
Total $88,846
118
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is effective January 1, 1999, between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION
CENTER, (hereinafter to as “Mediation Center”), a Minnesota non-profit corporation.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes, as reflected in Vision St. Louis Park,
the importance of strong connections to the community, civic commitment, mutual respect, and
neighborliness and strongly supports individuals, neighborhoods, and community institutions
working together to solve problems; and
WHEREAS, mediation services can help resolve disputes or problems within the St.
Louis Park community for neighbors, family members, businesses, employers, employees,
landlords, tenant, juveniles and others; and
WHEREAS, the Mediation Center has organized community based mediation programs
within the Hennepin County suburban area for the purpose of offering neutral, impartial, results
oriented mediation services that focus on serving parties in a dispute and providing citizens with
a quick, accessible and inexpensive forum to resolve their disputes; and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in supporting the provision of alternative dispute
resolution services for members of the City of St. Louis Park community who are not able to
resolve grievances alone.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
A. Term of the Agreement. The term of this Agreement is January 1, 1999 through December
31, 1999, subject to termination as provided in Section G.
B. Services Provided. In Consideration of the amount paid by the City, the Mediation Center
shall provide the following services.
1. The Mediation Center will provide free, confidential, voluntary, and speedy mediations,
conciliation, information and referral, and public education to resolve conflicts, disputes and
problems for members of the City of St. Louis Park community in conformance with guidelines
and rules established pursuant to Minnesota statues, Chapter 494 - Community Dispute
Resolution Program.
2. The Mediation Center will send to the City Manager a quarterly report, commencing with the
1999 1st quarter report to be provided by May 1, 1999, summarizing the number and nature of
the activities provided to St. Louis Park community members pursuant to the agreement.
119
3. The Mediation Center shall provide services under this agreement without regard to race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, martial status, familial status, sexual orientation,
age or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
C. Eligibility. St. Louis Park community members eligible for the services are those persons
with a conflict or dispute appropriate for mediation and not excluded under Minnesota Statues
Chapter 494-03 or other guidelines and rules promulgated by the State Court.
D. Indemnification. The Mediation Center agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified and
defend, hold and save City harmless from and against any all actions or cause of which City shall
or may at any time sustain, precipitate or incur arising out of or in relation to the conduct of
Mediation Center or employees, agents, volunteers or servants of Mediation Center acting within
the scope of and in connection with the Mediation Center.
E. Non-Assignability. This agreement is personal to the parties specified herein and may not be
transferred or assigned by either party hereto.
F. Insurance. The Mediation Center shall carry and keep in force insurance, including but not
limited to: professional liability, general liability, automobile liability insurance, workers
compensation insurance, and any other coverage required by applicable statues. Said insurance
policies shall be from an insurance company licensed to do business in Minnesota.
G. Termination.
1. Prior to the expiration of December 31, 1999, the agreement may be terminated by either party
for any reason upon the giving of thirty-(30) days written notice.
2. If the agreement is terminated before expiration pursuant to this section, the Mediation Center
will be paid a pro-rata portion of the total compensation based upon the number of days in the
contract period prior to contract termination.
3. The City reserves the right to cancel this Agreement at any time in event of default or
violation by the Mediation Center of any provision of this Agreement. The City may take
whatever action at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to collect damages
arising from a default or violation to enforce performance of this agreement.
H. Consideration. For the performance of the services described in this document, the City
agrees to pay the Mediation Center three thousand nine hundred dollars ($3,900) which shall
be paid in two equal payments.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution of this Agreement on their
behalf by their duly authorized representatives.
120
1999 Agreement - City & Mediation Center
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION
BY:______________________________ BY:______________________________
Its Mayor Its Executive Director
AND:
BY:______________________________
Its Manager
Attest:
City Clerk
121
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
11b.* 1999 Major Equipment Purchases
This report considers authorizing the replacement of mowing unit #9120, a Toro
580D, during 1999. The City Charter and State Statute require all purchases and
contracts in excess of $25,000 be approved by the City Council.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution which accepts this report
and authorizes staff to replace unit #9120 in 1999.
Background: During November 1998 staff presented proposed 1999 equipment replacements
to Council at a Study Session. Council authorized the 1999 major equipment replacements at the
December 7, 1998 Council meeting. This authorization covered the replacement of 20 vehicles
of which five (5) were expected to cost over $25,000.
As Council is aware, staff worked with the consulting firm of David M. Griffith (DMG) during
1998 to determine appropriate service lives for equipment, develop an equipment capital cost
recovery methodology, and set up a long term equipment replacement model. The proposed
1999 replacements, described above, were based on this DMG study. Since late 1998 staff has
been studying the model and the projected equipment replacements. Operations staff is being
involved in this process to allow for evaluation of not only the replacement plan but also the
equipment appropriateness and usages. At this time, part of the fleet has been evaluated and the
balance of the fleet is expected to be completed by June 1, 1999. As a result of this evaluation,
several replacement changes in the Parks “Fleet” are necessary for this year. It is possible there
may be minor changes in several other “fleets” yet in 1999 and that will be known soon.
Wherever possible, these changes will be addressed in future replacements, not in 1999.
However, to be specific in “Parks” case, an incorrect replacement life (age) was used in the DMG
model for Toro mowing units (Model 580D). A 10 year life was used and an eight (8) year life
should have been. This advances the replacement of mowing unit #9120 from 2001 to 1999.
This replacement is warranted at this time as verified by its condition and the history of past
units. This mower would be replaced with the same size and type of mower as the Toro 580D.
On a more positive note, several pieces of equipment were determined not to be replaced and we
extended the life of one mower, unit #8678, from 10 up to 20 years. The result of these changes
in “Parks” equipment is to reduce 1999 equipment replacement costs $20,030, to defer $38,000
of costs into the future, and to downsize the fleet by two (2) vehicles with a total replacement
cost of $67,500. The net result is an approximate savings of $50,500 in 1999 dollars in
equipment replacement costs.
122
The table(s) below summarizes the changes being made to the plan:
Unit #
Description
Repl. Yr
Repl. Cost
Revised
Repl. Yr.
Revised
Repl. Cost
8435 Tractor 1999 $45,000 DNR $ 0
8678 Gang Reel Mower 1999 $38,000 2006 $ 46,000
9120 Toro Mower (580D) 2001 $67,825 1999 $ 62,970
7570 Stump Chipper 2002 $22,500 DNR $ 0
9317 Toro Mower (580D) 2003 $69,860 2001 $ 65,850
DNR = Do not replace
Savings
Original 1999 Costs $ 83,000 $ --
Revised 1999 Costs $ 62,970 $ 20,030
Deleted Costs $ 67,500 $ 67,500
Deferred Costs $ 38,000 ($38,000)
Net Savings $50,500
Summary: Staff has made the fleet modifications identified above and requests Council to
authorize the replacement of mowing unit #9120 as described above.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
123
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS,
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
REPLACEMENT OF UNIT #9120
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Director of Public Works related to the replacement of unit #9120.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Director of Public Works report regarding replacement of unit #9120 is hereby accepted.
2. Unit #9120, a mower, is authorized for replacement during 1999.
3. The Director of Public Works is further authorized to acquire a replacement unit as allowed
by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance through the following methods: by bid, by purchase from
State of Minnesota Contract, or by purchase from Hennepin County Contract.
4. The necessary Specifications for this replacement as prepared under the direction of the
Director of Public Works are Approved.
5. When necessary, the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in
the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin advertisements for bids for said
equipment under said specifications. Advertisements shall appear not less than twenty-one
(21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids
will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s
check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of
the bid.
6. Bids received for equipment shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall
report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
124
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of April 5, 1999
*11c. Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Grant
The City has been awarded a grant from the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention
Program to address the problem of auto theft. The State requires the City Council
to adopt a resolution approving the grant agreement before the grant will be
processed. No matching funds are required.
Recommended
Action:
Adopt resolution approving grant agreement between the
Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program and the City of St.
Louis Park and authorize the City Manager and Chief of Police
to execute this agreement.
Background:
The St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded an auto theft grant from the Minnesota
Auto Theft Prevention Program in the amount of $47,320.00 for the period of July 1, 1999
through June 30, 2000. The initial phase of this grant targeted the Birchwood, Elliot and Wolfe
Park neighborhoods which were identified as the three highest risk areas for auto theft. By
identifying repeat locations, victims and suspects, officers have been able to concentrate on an
even smaller target area with surveillance and directed patrol, resulting in the reduction of auto
thefts in these three neighborhoods and a moderate displacement of auto thefts into surrounding
neighborhoods. This additional funding will be used to continue monitoring repeat locations and
offenders, to develop community partnerships and to promote education preventing auto thefts.
Statistics in 1998 show a small decrease in auto theft. Displacement is occurring in the
neighborhoods surrounding the target areas. The strategies for 1999 will address displacement.
Attachments: Resolution approving grant agreement
Letter from MN Auto Theft Prevention Prog. (on file in City Clerk’s office)
Grant application (on file in City Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
125
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA AUTO THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a
$47,320.00 community policing grant by the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program to
continue a community policing initiative targeting auto theft; and
WHEREAS, the State requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant
agreement and authorizing its execution;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the
community policing grant agreement and authorizes the City Manager and Chief of Police to
execute the agreement.
Adopted by the City Council April 5, 1999
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
126
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11d*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
*11d. Bid Tabulation: 1999 Contract Sealcoating
This reports considers awarding a contract for the sealcoating of designated
bituminous streets within the City of St. Louis Park to Asphalt Surface
Technologies Corporation.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation the
lowest responsible bidder for the construction of bituminous
sealcoating and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in
the amount of $44,785.24.
Background: 1) On March 15, 1999, Council authorized for the advertising and receipt of bids for
contract sealcoating. 2) Advertisement for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on
March 24, and 31, 1999 and in the Construction Bulletin on March 26, and April 2, 1999. 3) Bids
from three (3) contractors were received on April 13, 1998 for this work. 4) A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
Contract Sealcoating of Bituminous Pavements
Vendor Bid Total
*Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. $44,785.24
Allied Blacktop $46,124.97
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $51,292.46
* Recommended Low Bid
Financial Considerations: The 1999 budget includes $73,200 for contract sealcoating. The award
of the contract to Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation in the amount of $44,785.24 will leave
an unexpended balance of $28,414.76. It should be noted that the City has the right to alter
bituminous material application rates which may change the actual amount of material used to
perform the sealcoating. This could have an impact on the final contract price being either higher or
lower than the total bid price stated above. The expected impact should be negligible.
Prepared by: Harlan Backlund/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
CMR
n:/Group/PW/Agenda/BTSeal9.doc
127
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11e*
Meeting of April 19, 1999
11e.* Bid Tabulation: 1999 Street Work Supplies
This report considers the purchase of bituminous patching materials.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous
mixture No. 2340 and for bituminous cold patch material and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$52,250.
Background: Bids received on April 13, 199 for furnishing bituminous patching materials used
for street repair as provided in the Street Division’s 1999 Operating Budget. An advertisement
for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 24, and 31, 1999 and in the
Construction Bulletin on March 26, and April 2, 1999. A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
Plant Mix Bituminous Mixtures
(Price Per Ton)
Vendor
Bituminous
Mix 2340
Type 41B
Bituminous
Mix 2340
Type 41A
Bituminous
Cold
Patch
* Bituminous
Roadways, Inc.
$ 19.00 $ 19.25 $ 42.50
C.S. McCrossan, Inc $ 18.75 $ 19.75 No Bid
1998 Price $ 18.00 $ 20.00 $ 42.50
Basis of Bids 500 tons 2,000 tons 100 tons
*Recommended
Low Bid
Financial Considerations: As stipulated in the bid documents, travel time to and from the
asphalt plant is significant to the bid award. Current rates for a truck and operator are $36.83 per
hour. Following is an analysis of the bids considering plant location:
128
1. Round trip drive time from Louisiana Avenue and Minnetonka Boulevard to:
C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 43 minutes = 0.71 hour
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 46 minutes = 0.76 hour
(continued)
2. Cost per trip:
C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 0.71 hour x $36.83/hour = $26.15
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 0.76 hour x $36.83/hour = $27.99
3. Total cost per ton: Basis of calculation - 8 tons per trip.
Vendor
Bituminous Mix
2340Type 41B
500 tons
Bituminous Mix
2340 Type 41A
2500 tons
Bituminous Cold
Patch
50 tons
C.S.
McCrossan, Inc
$ 22.02 $23.02 No Bid
(($18.75x8)+$26.15)/8) (($19.75x8)+$26.15)/8)
Bituminous
Roadways, Inc.
$22.50 $22.75 $46.00
(($19.00x8)+$27.99)÷8) (($19.25x8)+$27.99)÷8) (($42.50x8)+$27.99)÷8)
Based upon the information provided, the lowest total cost for bituminous mixtures is incurred
when the mixtures are picked up at the Bituminous Roadway, Inc. facility. Accordingly, staff
recommends the entire bituminous mixture supply contract be awarded to Bituminous Roadways,
Inc.. If the contract is awarded as recommended, the total bituminous mixture cost for 1999 will
be $52,250. The 1999 Street Division Operating Budget for the bituminous materials is $49,054
which will be revised upwards later in 1999, if necessary, to accommodate this purchase.
Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
the lowest responsible bidder for conventional and driveway bituminous mixture No. 2340 and
for bituminous cold patch material and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $52,250.
Prepared by: Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager