Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999/06/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
1 7:00 p.m.. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 7, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Appreciation for Kathleen McBride, Finance Director 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of May 17, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda. Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s) b. Agenda Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s) *c. Resolutions and Ordinances Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 6a. Public hearing on an application for intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses for Brinda-Heilicher of St. Louis Park d/b/a “Shelly’s 2 Woodroast” at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the intoxicating on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. 6b. Public hearing on the transfer of an off-sale intoxicating liquor license at 8242 Minnetonka Boulevard from Summit Liquors to Texas-Tonka Liquors. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the transfer of the off-sale liquor license. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 7a. Appeal of John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue, to decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Mohler is appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s interpretations relating to building height, size of an accessory structure, and use of an accessory building. Recommended Action: By motion, uphold the Board of Zoning Appeal’s decision agreeing with the Zoning Administrator’s interpretations. 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Application from Minnesota Youth Athletic Services to conduct lawful gambling (pull tabs) at the Classic Café located at 4700 Excelsior Boulevard. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution. 8b. Resolution appointing Third Ward Councilmember Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution appointing __________________ to the office of Ward Three Councilmember effective ___________. 8c. Ratification of an appointment to the position of Interim Director of Finance, and authorization of a contract with RHI Management Resources This action appoints John Brooks as Interim Director of Finance pending the selection of a permanent Director of Finance, and authorizes a contract with a firm which specializes in placement of temporary financial professionals. Recommended Motion to ratify the appointment of John Brooks to the position 3 Action: of Interim Director of Finance effective June 10, 1999. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with RHI Management Resources for temporary financial professional services. 8d. Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park The Friends of the Arts presented the results of their yearlong strategic planning process to the City Council on May 24, 1999. The City Council is now being asked to adopt a resolution of support for the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution of support for the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park 8e. Resolution approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan This resolution approves the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan. *8f. Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000 - 2002. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution authorizing the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between the City and the County concerning the Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000 - 2002. *8g. 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 4 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Human Rights Commission Report of 1998 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *c. Board of Zoning Appeals minutes of April 22, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *d. Housing Authority minutes of April 14, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *e. Vendor Claim Report Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business *11a. Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping – City Project No. 98-15 This report considers rejecting all bids received for the construction of two (2) City entrance entry signs and site landscaping. Recommended Action: Motion to reject all bids and readvertise for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments *a. Contract payments Final- None Partial 5 Hardrives, Inc. $ 82,403.28 Construction of Excelsior Blvd/Phase 2 Contract No. 14-98 Action: By consent approve and authorize payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 6 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 17, 1999 1. Call to order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. 2. Presentation a. Nordic Ware Tower Anniversary Mayor Jacobs presented a proclamation for the Peavey Tower (also known as the Nordic Ware Tower) on the occasion of it’s 100th anniversary b. Buddy Poppy Day Opal Nelson made an appearance before the Council and received a proclamation from Mayor Jacobs declaring May 21, 1999 as Buddy Poppy Day. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Finance Director (Ms. McBride); and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of May 3, 1999 With a minor correction, page 8 bottom paragraph, change word “mandated” to “done legally”. the minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 6-0. 7 b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Latz, 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. Transfer of On-Sale and Sunday Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Bennigan’s at 6475 Wayzata Blvd. There being no one present wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of Council to open it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the transfer of On-Sale and Sunday Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Bennigan’s. The motion passed 6-0. 6b. Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Revision Case No. 97-9-C Planning Coordinator Judie Erickson explained the purpose of a Comprehensive Plan and presented a summary of proposed changes for Council consideration to Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020. Mayor Jacobs invited anyone present to speak to the issue. Sue Bloyer, 2935 Pennsylvania Ave S spoke regarding Texa Tonka. As she had stated to the Planning commission at an earlier meeting, she and others had concerns with the vacant eastern property and parking lot. She felt there had been little or no development of the property and could not advocate leaving the property in its current condition. She also did not concur with the Planning commission recommendation of commercial mixed use as she was concerned that the development would become another strip mall. She felt she and her neighbors would support a designation of medium density residential, like townhomes. Tony Gleekel, 1300 One Hundred Washington Square, spoke regarding Texa Tonka Shopping center. He indicated that letters had been forwarded to the City on behalf of Jeff Fine, owner of Texa Tonka Shopping Center. Mayor Jacobs indicated that, as requested, that correspondence had been entered into the official record. He indicated that the owner concurred with the recommendation that the area be reviewed in terms of the best future use of the property. 8 Jeffrey Fine, 2101 Hennepin Ave, spoke about the management and operation of Texa Tonka Shopping Center and expressed surprise that the neighborhood association felt that the area was depressed because he had spoken to the organization several years ago and had offered his support to the association but had not been contacted since about the management or condition of the center. He said there were 12,000 sq. ft. of vacant space which is the result of market conditions and that he had aggressively encouraged occupancy of the space. He also said that he had recently expended approximately $300,000 in improvements to the interior. He felt that vacancy in retail space was a problem across the country and not particular to Texa Tonka Shopping Center. He explained the chain of events which occurred regarding the vacant grocery and drug stores and also gave a history of other businesses in the center. He explained that he had a letter of intent from the Jewish Family Services Agency that wanted to conduct an adult day care agency. He wanted to proceed with the lease agreements and stated that completion of the agreement would result in improvements to the building in the amount of approximately $200,000. He also explained the nature of a variance pending regarding outdoor recreational area in that development and gave an overview of the parking requirements and restrictions. He felt that if the entire shopping center were occupied, overflow parking would need to be retained. He was skeptical of the mixed use designation and did not feel that it was appropriate to designate the area as mixed use when that designation was not even entirely fleshed out in ordinance. He asked that the current zoning be retained. If the City felt that a study was necessary to determine the best use of the intersection, Mr. Fine would be willing to put resources in to the project. He closed his remarks by drawing to Council’s attention the resolution under consideration. He asked Council to consider the Comprehensive Plan’s current designation and to conduct a study of the area as proposed by staff. Lindley Opitz, owner of Opitz Outlet, came before Council to discuss proposed changes to the designation on that property. Martin Knoll, 3300 Rode island Ave S, had questions related to the proposed Trail and Sidewalk designations in the plan. He understood that the plan was to be approved and was concerned about the path proposed between Aquila and Oak Hill parks and the recommendation for a 10 foot bituminous path. He questioned if there would be additional surveys and opportunity for public input. Mayor Jacobs responded that there would be that opportunity and asked Mr. Harmening to address the question. Mr. Harmening stated that the master plan is a starting plan and that there would be a significant public component. He said that the public input would help to determine cost and other details needed to put together a truly feasible plan of action. He also presented 9 some of the plans for receiving public input from neighborhoods and concerned residents like open houses and other public meetings. Dan Smaida, 3246 Rhode Island Ave S, also addressed Council regarding the trails and sidewalks master plan. He felt the plan was a good concept and was congruent with Vision St. Louis Park and would make the community safer and more livable. He was concerned, however, was with the order of how things had been put together. He did not feel that the language included in the plan did not address the public input component and potential for changes to the plan based on that input. He felt more specific criteria could be identified that would cause changes to be made to the plan. Mayor Jacobs stated that without the public input this plan could not be implemented and that changes would indeed be incorporated as the plan develops. He further stated that the existence of a Comprehensive Plan does not order projects, but only outlines concepts for future planning. Mr. Harmening concurred that there are a series of processes involved in any project of this magnitude and that any one of those processes could potentially result in changes. He did not feel language specifically stating this inherent fact needed to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smaida felt Council had done a good job of explaining the public process verbally and was confident that Council intended to stand by that concept, but recommended that language be included in the Comprehensive Plan stating that the plan can and will be changed as recommendations are heard from the public and also recommended that criteria be included in that language which states the conditions under which the plan would be modified. Councilmember Latz did not see a need for the inclusion of specific language stating that we will follow a public process already dictated by statute, charter, ordinance and practice. Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Latz’s comments. He felt this Council has a good track record with inclusion of public process in all major projects undertaken. Mr. Smaida felt that if Council was confident about the public process and their commitment to include the result of that process into the sidewalk and trail plan, that there should be no problem with including language to that effect in the Comprehensive Plan. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, expressed his appreciation to the City for their consideration of resident concerns in his neighborhood and for designing the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with those concerns. Conrad Miller, 2475 Holy Name Drive, requested that Council consider placing 7342 West 14th Street into an R4 status. 10 Mark Frank, 3627 Kipling, asked questions about development plans for an area near his home. Staff responded that the Comprehensive Plan acts as a guide for zoning and does not call for any development plans at the property in question. Robert Copus, 1409 Colorado Ave S, requested that properties at 1409 and 1413 Colorado be changed from R4 to commercial designation. Linda Williams, 3701 Kipling, asked that her property be guided as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right of Council to reopen at a future date. Councilmember Young proposed that two properties 7805 and 7815 Wayzata Blvd be retained as residential rather than being guided as commercial as proposed. The City Attorney recommended that each proposed change be presented as a motion to amend the resolution and voted on individually, and that one motion be made at the end of the discussion to adopt the Comprehensive Plan as revised. Mr. Harmening pointed out alternative amendments that had been prepared by staff in anticipation of the amendments being proposed by Council. Area 4 of those proposed amendments would pertain to Councilmember Young’s motion. Councilmember Young moved to eliminate 7805 and 7815 from page four of the resolution and modify the land use maps in chapters c and u. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Young spoke about properties located at 1409-1413 Colorado and felt they should be guided as commercial which would fit in best with the neighborhood. He felt it premature to make that change at this time and indicated he would like additional guidance from the neighborhood. Has asked that the issue be placed on a future study session. He asked that the apartment building on 14th Street be left as a non-conforming use in accordance with neighborhood wishes. Councilmember Sanger asked if the recommendation for a land use study at Texa Tonka could include an end date for the completion of the study. Mr. Harmening pointed out that two separate segments of the Comprehensive Plan called for a land use study and indicated that those processes are significant and will greatly impact staff resources. He did not feel comfortable putting an end date on a Texa-Tonka study at this time. Councilmember Sanger stated her concern that the property at Texa Tonka has been in continual decline for the past 15 years. She understood Mr. Fine’s comments about his investment in the property but was concerned about the exterior looking blighted. She was concerned that without 11 an end date on the process, it would be another excuse for delaying further improvements to the property. She asked if August of the year 2000 would give staff adequate time to complete a study. Mr. Harmening responded that rather than suggesting an end date, he would be more comfortable with suggesting a start date within one year as an alternative. Councilmember Sanger did not find that acceptable and was prepared to vote against an amendment calling for the study if that was the case. Councilmember Brimeyer asked that Council consider the objectives of such a study and the outcomes might be in terms of helping the land owner get the highest and best use of the parcels in question. He asked that Council discuss a partnership with the land owner at a future study session. He suggested using consultants to assist with any study proposed. Councilmember Latz indicated that Texa Tonka Shopping center had been an area of concern for several years and has been a consistent refrain from ward three constituents because of a perception of the unwillingness of the property owner to get involved in improving that property. He recognized the existence of other pressing land use decisions pending in ward three and the fact that the City’s planning department staff have been overwhelmed with development and redevelopment issues in the park. He spoke to the willingness of Mr. Fine to step forward and become a part of discussions regarding improvements to the property. He mentioned development plans that may bring additional activity to the shopping center. He felt it made the most sense to leave the designation as they currently exist in the parking lots area and recommended going ahead with a land use study with the aid of an outside consultant and with significant public input. He also indicated that if he did not see a willingness on the part of the land owner to step forward with financial resources to make improvements, he would initiate the reguiding of the Comprehensive Plan to make changes that the community would like to see in the best use of that property. Councilmember Nelson stated that when he moved to St. Louis Park 12 years ago, Texa Tonka looked much healthier than it does today. He wanted to see significant changes but was not willing to pull staff time away from current projects. He was willing to support an amendment calling for a study if consultants would be used to enhance staff resources. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Fine if he was willing to publicly comment about his willingness to commit financial resources to improving the property. Mr. Fine asked if the City was also willing to put substantial resources into redevelopment of the property. He felt if the City had a vision for a different kind of land use for that intersection, that the City should put public resources into the project as well. He did not feel it was reasonable to expect him to commit his financial resources to a project as yet undefined. He offered to willingly step aside should the City choose to redevelop the property in the future provided his economic interests were fairly served. 12 Councilmember Latz moved to adopt the alternative amendment for areas six and seven. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Nelson had several comments and proposed changes Page I-39, paragraph 2: regarding switching in the Elmwood neighborhood, one of the goals needs to be vacation of the wye in the Brooklawns neighborhood. He indicated that he would pursue that through the railroad study process. Page I-43, regarding the depiction of the Hutchinson Spur as an inactive rail line. Councilmember Nelson asked if it is it still considered a rail line or if it had been vacated? Ms. Erickson stated that it is listed as it is on the map to indicate its conversion to other uses. He asked that vacation of the railroad right away be addressed in the near future. Page N-10: Councilmember Nelson asked that cooperative agreements be pursued with senior facilities to reduce the impact on the City’s emergency services budget and moved that language be changed to delete the last sentence of page N10. Seconded for purposes of discussion by Councilmember Young. Councilmember Sanger did not feel there was enough information to make an informed vote on the deletion and asked that Council be provided with appropriate data to make a decision. Ms. Erickson said that the chapter was written with input from Police, Fire and Inspections departments and they had not made comment regarding that section. She did not think a scientific study had been conducted to determine if impact on the designated land use was “equal”, but felt it was more balanced that it might appear on the surface. Councilmember Nelson had spoken with Mike Gould about potential expansion of senior housing expansion impacts to City emergency services. Mr. Gould had been receptive to the idea of incorporating into his development some form of stop-gap assistance available that would reduce police and fire calls. His concern was that if the language remained as stated in the Comprehensive Plan that it would remove leverage the City may have to deal with that type of facility. Councilmember Latz also did not feel that Council had enough information to make an informed decision. Mr. Scott agreed with Councilmember Latz that the text included in the Comprehensive Plan had very little impact on powers of the City to regulate a particular land use. Councilmember Nelson withdrew the motion. Page O-8: Home based employment. Councilmember Nelson did not agree with the vision for home based retail as outlined in the plan. 13 Page U-104, Al’s site at France and Excelsior Blvd. Councilmember Nelson stated that the neighborhood wanted height limitations in place if that site were to be developed. Ms. Erickson stated that ultimately height limitation would be addressed with any redevelopment project that would come before Council. Pages U-124-125: Wooddale needs to be spelled correctly and he was concerned about discrepancy between maps. Councilmember Nelson also asked that the architecture of historic housing stock be maintained and not divided into apartments. Ms. Erickson felt the issue was that duplexes already exist legally. If the designation was changed to R2, those duplexes would become non-conforming. The neighborhood was concerned with the appearance of the architecture. The language in the Comprehensive Plan provided a basis for developing restrictions related to historic preservation. Councilmember Nelson moved to adopt the alternative amendment to area 9 because it was a commercial designation, the property owner had made business decisions based on that designation. Motion seconded by Councilmember Latz. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Nelson also asked that on page 22 of the resolution, paragraph 7 which talks about the transitway and transit station, he had indicated several times that he his not ready to accept the concept to place in the Comprehensive Plan. He made a motion to delete paragraph 7. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Latz noted that the amendments offered regarding Texa Tonka included as part of the amendment, that a land use study be conducted. He also reiterated that he did not feel it necessary to put public process language into the Comprehensive Plan regarding the proposed trail and sidewalk plan. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to adopt the resolution with the amendments as previously moved. The motion passed 6-0. Mayor Jacobs thanked members of the audience for their very articulate and helpful comments. Mr. Pires offered his thanks to staff for their diligent work over the past several years in bringing this Comprehensive Plan forward. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Renewal of a Class A Lawful Gambling Premises Permit for the Knights of Columbus Council 3949 at 6900 Oxford St. 14 It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the resolution authorizing the renewal of a two-year premised permit for Class A Lawful gambling at the Knights of Columbus at 6900 Oxford St. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Nelson opposed. 8b. Resolution Awarding the Sale of $2,500,000 in General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 1999 Ms McBride indicated that the motion required 6 votes to carry. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to accept the resolution awarding the sale of $2,500,000 G.O. General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds. The motion passed 6-0. *8c. Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 6900 West Lake Street. By consent, Council adopted the resolution. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Planning Commission minutes of April 14, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing b. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission minutes of April 21, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing c. Vendor Claim Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing 10. Unfinished Business - None 11. New Business *11a. Bid Tabulation: Watermain replacement on Ford Road from Ford Lane to the north frontage road of I-394 – Project No. 99-01 and roadway mill and overlay – Project no. 97-22. 15 By consent, Council designated Valley Paving, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder for a watermain replacement on Ford Road from Ford Lane to the north frontage road of I-394 and a roadway mill and overlay. *11b. Bid Tab: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract By consent, Council authorized the mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the purchase of GAC in the amount of $53,400.00. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments 14. Communications Mayor Jacobs reminded Council of interviews for ward Three Councilmembers and indicated that an appointment would be made at the first meeting in June. 15. Adjournment It was moved unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 16 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of June 7, 1999 6a. Public hearing on an application for intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses for Brinda-Heilicher of St. Louis Park d/b/a “Shelly’s Woodroast” at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the intoxicating on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. Background: The City has received a completed application from Brinda Heilicher of St. Louis Park, d/b/a “Shelly’s Woodroast” for an intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor license. Shelly’s Woodroast closed in September of 1998 and is now planning to reopen on June 8th under new ownership. Application and all materials are on file in the Inspections Department for review. Police Report: The Police Department investigated the principals and no problems were found. Prepared by: Cindy Kaiser, Licensing Representative Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 17 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6b Meeting of June 7, 1999 6b. Public hearing on the transfer of an off-sale intoxicating liquor license at 8242 Minnetonka Boulevard from Summit Liquors to Texas-Tonka Liquors. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the transfer of the off-sale liquor license. Background: Texas Tonka Liquors is requesting the transfer of an off-sale intoxicating liquor license at 8242 Minnetonka Boulevard from Summit Liquors, current occupant of the building, to Texas Tonka Liquors who will be purchasing the business. This location has been an off-sale liquor establishment for over 30 years. Application and all materials are on file in the Inspections Department for review. Police Report: The Police Department has investigated the principals and no problems were found. Prepared by: Cindy Kaiser, Licensing Representative Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 18 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of June 7, 1999 7a. Appeal of John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue, to decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Mohler is appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s interpretations relating to building height, size of an accessory structure, and use of an accessory building. Recommended Action: By motion, uphold the Board of Zoning Appeal’s decision agreeing with the Zoning Administrator’s interpretations. Background: On September 24, 1998, the city issued a building permit to the homeowner of 4312 Coolidge Avenue for construction of a detached garage in the rear of the property. The review was consistent with previous interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance. During construction of the ground level, the city received several inquires regarding the proposed height of the garage. A reexamination of the approved plans revealed a difference in understanding between the homeowner and the Inspections staff. A stop work order was posted at the job until the city met with the owner and carpenters to clarify that the building would be constructed in conformance with the maximum 15 foot height requirement. After the roof structure was installed, the city received additional questions regarding the height, location, and size of the garage. Further investigation revealed that the roof overhang on the south side would be encroaching one foot in the required side yard setback. Inspection staff informed the owners of this violation. They acknowledged this error and modified the building to reduce the overhang from two feet to one foot. No other violations were noted at that time. John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue, believes that the city is interpreting the ordinance incorrectly on how to determine building height, ground floor area ratio, and use. He appealed these interpretations of the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 22, 1999. The Board upheld the interpretations of the Zoning Administrator by a unanimous vote of 5-0. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Board to the City Council. The staff report presented to the Board detailing relevant code sections and in depth analysis is included for your reference. City staff conducted an inspection of the accessory structure on April 27, 1999. At that time, it was determined that the structure was 17 feet high to the mid-point of the roof, or 2 feet over the maximum allowable height. Before proceeding with corrections, the property owner and the city is waiting for the outcome of the appeals process. City staff will take the appropriate action to ensure the building is brought into compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 19 During a recent Study Session, City Council discussed permitted building heights under the current requirements and their effect on the community. Staff was directed to review the Zoning Ordinance and draft proposed amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council to more precisely regulate building height. Issues: • Method to Determine Building Height • Maximum Size of an Accessory Structure • Use of an Accessory Structure • Additional Concerns of the Applicant Analysis of Issues: The conclusions of the Council will determine how the Code is enforced throughout the City and is not site specific to 4312 Coolidge Ave. Method to Determine Building Height Section 14:3-1 Building height is measured from the finished grade (or the curb elevation, which ever is higher) to the mid-point of the roof on the side of the building facing the public right-of-way. The mid- point on a roof is determined in the same manner for both a hip style or gable-end roof. Height is only measured from the view of the building which has frontage on a public right-of-way. Measuring from the highest gable or hip roof to the lowest grade elevation on opposite sides does not accurately depict the height of a building. If the code requires maximum building height to be applicable on all side of a building, then each side should be viewed independently measuring from grade to the roofs mid-point on that side. The applicant believes that building height is determined from the lowest grade elevation to the overall highest roof slope or gable on a structure, regardless if they are on opposite sides of the building or not fronting a public right-of-way. Maximum Size of an Accessory Structure Sections 14:3-1 and 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d) The ordinance states that a garage cannot exceed 800 square feet or 25% of the rear yard area. This measurement is stated in the ordinance as ground floor area and not total floor area. The applicant believes that the floor area of all stories should be used in determining the allowable size of all accessory structures. The maximum total ground floor area ratio for all structures in the R-2 District is 30% of the lot. This includes the ground floor of the principal building as well as the ground floor for any detached garage over twelve (12) feet in height. Total floor area for buildings in the “R-2” District is unlimited. 20 Use of an Accessory Structure Section 14:3-1 The applicant is concerned that the 2nd floor could be used as a separate dwelling unit. Since no utilities, water or sewer, are being brought into the structure, the second floor use of the garage is determined to be accessory or subordinate to the principal use. This use would be viewed similar to a gazebo or outdoor sauna. Additional Concerns of the Applicant The applicant has raised several other issues that are be addressed below. 1. The plans submitted were inadequate and should not have been accepted. The plans that were received and approved by the city were typical and adequate for issuing a building permit. The plans provided all the necessary information for issuance of a permit except clarity of building height. 2. The plans approved allowed a height in excess of the maximum allowable and permitted a side yard setback encroachment therefore, the permit is void. The plans did allow for an increased height and a setback encroachment. However, a stop work order was posted on the job, and these items were rectified. The height would be lowered to meet the maximum 15-foot height, and the overhang would be reduced to one foot. Therefore, the permit was still considered in full force and effect. 3. The structure is build different than the approved plans. The structure was built slightly different than the approved plans. If changes are made that greatly affect the design or appearance of the building, then new plans would be required. Since the changes that were made are not significant, new plans were not required to be submitted and approved. 4. The structure may be used as a primary residence or apartment, and since a house already exists on the lot, it is an illegal building. As mentioned above, this building has no utilities. It cannot be used for a principal building. The applicant did ask for sewer and water into the facility, but this was not approved by the city. Therefore, the use is accessory and legal. Attachments: Staff Report Adopted Resolution Minutes from the April 22, 1999 BOZA meeting Letter Requesting Appeal Illustrated Drawings Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections 21 Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Inspections Department City of St. Louis Park April 22, 1999 CASE NO. 2-99 INT ZONING INTERPRETATION 4312 COOLIDGE AVENUE SUBJECT Request of John Mohler for an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of Sections 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(f), 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d), 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e), and 14:3-1 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance relating to building height, side yard setback, size of an accessory structure, and use. SUBJECT ZONING SECTIONS Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(f), states the height of accessory in the “R” Use District. “The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet, except parking ramps whose height...” Section 14:3-1, definitions for terms used within the ordinance - building height. “A distance to be measured from the mean curb level along the front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that portions of the structure having frontage on a public right- of-way whichever is higher to the top of the parapet or rooftop equipment whichever is higher, of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof; to the uppermost point of a round or arch type roof; or the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.” Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e), states the required setbacks for accessory structures. “A detached garage located 60 feet or more from the front lot line shall be a minimum of two (2) feet from any lot lines.” Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d), states the maximum size for all accessory structures. “The total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the area between the principal structure and the rear lot line and in the “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” districts, it shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet. Except in the “R-3” district...” 22 Case #2-99 INT April 22, 1999 Page 2 Section 14:3-1, definitions for accessory use. “A use or a structure subordinate to the principal use or structure on the same land and customarily incidental thereto.” BACKGROUND On September 24, 1998, the Inspections Department issued a permit to Michael Christianson for the construction of a garage on his property addressed 4312 Coolidge Avenue. The property is currently zoned “R-2”, Single Family Residential. During construction, a complaint was received by the Inspections Department regarding the proposed height of the garage. A stop work order was posted on the project until it was confirmed the garage was being constructed in compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The city informed the complainant that the garage was being constructed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. City staff explained how the garage height was calculated and therefore complying with the ordinance. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator. In addition, the applicant has other concerns regarding the garage which will be addressed within this staff report. Garage Height - Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(f) APPLICANT’S INTERPRETATION The applicant states the building height is 16.75 feet, which is 1.75 feet over the maximum allowable. The applicant takes the measurement from the grade level to the midpoint of a gable end. For the gable end, the applicant uses the definition for a gable from Webster’s Dictionary. The definition is the vertical triangular end of a building from cornice or eaves to the ridge. The applicant uses the north side of the building to calculate the height. This is illustrated in Exhibit “I”. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION The maximum height for an accessory building is 15 feet. The building height is measured from the lowest grade level to the midpoint of the trusses or rafters for a gable roof. The building height is typically measured for the portion of the structure having frontage along a public right- of-way. In the case at 4312 Coolidge Avenue, the building height was determined to be 14.875 23 feet. The height was determined by taking the height of the garage wall (10 feet) and adding it the midpoint of the rafters, for that side of the building, (4.875 feet). This gave us a total of 14.875 feet or approximately 14 feet 10 Case #2-99 INT April 22, 1999 Page 3 inches. The roof height is figured by taking half of the garage width (13 feet) and multiply it by the slope rise of the roof (9 inches/foot). This gives us 117 inches in height to the highest point of the roof or its peak. One hundred seventeen inches is 9.75 feet or 9 feet 9 inches. Since this is the overall height, taking half of it will give us the midpoint of the roof (4.875 feet). Therefore, it is the City’s interpretation that the height of the accessory building located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue does comply with city requirements. Building height needs to be determined by taking measurements from the same side of a building. This is why height is more of a perceived dimension. In the applicant’s interpretation, they are taking grade level on the east side of the garage and using a roof height measurement from the north side. In staff’s interpretation, we are using the east side grade level, and the east side roof height, which is the portion of the building that fronts a public right-of-way. Side Yard Setback - Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e) APPLICANT’S INTERPRETATION The applicant indicates that the plans show the structure to be located three (3) feet from the south lot line. However, this is to the foundation, and does not include the overhang of the building. The applicant points out that the overhang is two (2) feet therefore, the setback from the property line is only one (1) foot. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION Staff agrees with the applicant that the property would encroach into the required setback. Staff has informed the property owner of the requirements of this section, and they have agreed to the reduce the overhang to one foot thereby meeting the two foot setback requirement. At the time the staff report was written, the Building Inspector confirmed the overhang had be reduced to one foot. Therefore, staff believes the structure is in compliance with Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e). Ground Floor Area Ratio - Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d) APPLICANT’S INTERPRETATION The applicant states the maximum size of a garage cannot exceed 25 percent of the rear yard or 800 square feet. The applicant agrees that the garage will not exceed 25 percent of the rear yard, however, they feel that the garage will exceed 800 square feet. The applicant indicates that the 24 total floor area of the accessory structure will be 1,024 square feet which is 224 square feet over the maximum allowable. Case #2-99 INT April 22, 1999 Page 4 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION The above referenced section of the Zoning Ordinance clearly states that in determining the size of an accessory structure, that only the “ground” floor area is to be used, not the floor area. The ground floor area of the garage is 624 square feet which is 176 square feet under the maximum allowable. Therefore, staff believes that the garage is in compliance with this section of the ordinance. Use - Section 14:3-1 APPLICANT’S INTERPRETATION The applicant states that the garage cannot be used for a dwelling unit nor can it be used for any portion of a home occupation. The applicant points out that the plans clearly indicated the space above the garage area as living space. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION Again, the applicant is correct. The garage cannot be used for another dwelling unit or for any portion of a home occupation. Staff has informed the owner of the property of these requirements. A dwelling unit is defined as a housekeeping establishment for one family with separate toilets and facilities for cooking and sleeping. The plans approved by the city do not include any toilet or kitchen facilities above the garage. Therefore, it is not defined as a dwelling unit. The applicant has indicated that they are intending on using this space for recreational purposes. In no way are they intending on using it for a dwelling unit or for a home occupation. Staff believes the garage is in compliance with this section of the Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES Staff has identified the following alternatives for the Board. 1. The Board, by a majority vote of all members present, adopt the attached resolution upholding the determinations of the Zoning Administrator. 2. The Board, by a majority vote of all the members present, direct staff to prepare a resolution overturning the determinations of the Zoning Administrator. 25 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL WITH FINDINGS REGARDING THE REQUEST OF JOHN MOHLER FOR AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(f), 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d), 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e), AND 14:3-1 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUILDING HEIGHT, SIDE YARD SETBACK, SIZE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND LAND USE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On September 24, 1998 the City of St. Louis Park issued a building permit to Michael Christianson to construct a garage in the rear yard. During construction, a complaint was received regarding the construction of the garage and its proposed height. A stop work order was posted until it was verified that the structure was being built in compliance with the City’s Ordinance Code. The stop work order was removed on the basis that: a. The height of the garage was being constructed below the maximum height allowable. b. The size of the garage did not exceed the maximum allowable. c. The use of the garage was conforming with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. On March 15, 1999, a request was filed by John Miller (representing John Mohler) to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 26 3. On April 22, 1999 the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony for the public, discussed the application and approved the Resolution of Denial. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals makes the following findings: a. The Zoning Administrator interpreted and enforced the zoning ordinance correctly. b. The garage being constructed does not exceed the maximum height or size, nor will its use be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The contents of Planning Case No. 2-99 INT are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based on the findings set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals upholds the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the Sections 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(f), 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d), 14:5- 4.1(A)(7)(e), AND 14:3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to building height, side yard setback, size of an accessory structure, and land use. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 22, 1999 _____________________________ James Gainsley, Chair ATTEST ___________________________ Scott Moore Zoning Administrator 27 MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 22, 1999 City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Anthony Reel, Mr. Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore, Brian Hoffman 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes dated January 28, 1999 Corrections to Minutes: Page 2 change to “Exhibits A-I or eight exhibits”, Page 4 change to “He (Mr. Reel) also did not feel that economics should be protected”. Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated January 28, 1998. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2-99 INT -- The request of John Mohler for an interpretation appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of Sections 14:5-4.1 (A)(7)(f), 14:5- 4.1(A)(7)(d), 14:5-4-4.1(A)(7)(e), and 14:3-1 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance relating to building height, side yard setback, size of an accessory structure, and use. 28 Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Mr. Moore presented a staff report and identified the following two alternatives for the Board. The Board by majority vote of the members present may adopt the attached resolution upholding the determination of the Zoning Administrator or the Board by a majority vote of the members present may direct staff to prepare a resolution overturning the determinations of the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Bloyer asked if the side yard roof technically considered a hip gable since it clearly does not look like the illustration in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Moore stated that the roof that the applicant is measuring from is a combination of really two roofs. There is a shed roof on the back and would be the east elevation. It’s more or less a combination of two separate structures. One can exist without the other. Commissioner Bloyer asked if it was possible where there is a second roof peak such as this for the side that is not measured to be taller than the side that faces the front yard. Mr. Moore indicated that it would be possible. When measuring building height, the ordinance states that you go from the side abutting a public right of way. In the case here, it is the east elevation, which is Exhibit C, that shows the garage door and gable roof right in front of it. In this instance, the rear of the property, there is a different height calculation for that if you wanted to take a measurement from the rear of the property. Again, the peak of the roof, the maximum height of the roof doesn’t change, it is 19 feet 10 inches to the peak of the roof. The grade difference from the front to the back is 6 feet. So just going from the back elevation looking at it from that grade level to the peak of the roof you are already at 13 feet and 9 inches which is still under the maximum allowable. Commissioner Bloyer stated that where she was getting at was on a hypothetical flat ground if they had two hip gables, the roof facing the front yard, that one being in compliance, and the second one measured from the ground, if that could be 2-4 feet higher. Mr. Moore stated it could be, but he did not ever see that happening. What would have to be done is manufacture two different trusses for the same structure. It would be a change in the pitch of the roof, making the building height higher. If the grade was perfectly flat, and a structure were built on there and the front portion had a 4-12 pitch and on the back it was a 9-12 pitch, then definitely the back would be higher. But when the ordinance states that you take it to the highest gable on a structure, that’s meaning that the end that is facing the public right-of-way. If you had an L-shaped structure where it would be possible to have two potential gable ends facing one elevation, you would take the highest one of the two. 29 Chair Gainsley stated that in other words if the ordinance writers had decided that they were going to make a different kind of a ruling for a roof having different pitch lines, they would have shown a diagram having different pitch lines and an illustration to provide for that. But they didn’t, so the intent is just the front. Mr. Moore stated that he would agree with that, or it would have been written into the language. John Miller, the applicant’s attorney presented documents to Chair Gainsley. Chair Gainsley entered a document dated February 9, 1999 to Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, St. Louis Park consisting of 10 pages as Exhibit A. Chair Gainsley entered a series of 5 photographs as Exhibits B, C, D, E and F. Chair Gainsley entered a series of 9 small photographs as Exhibit G. John Miller, the applicant’s attorney stated he was a lawyer in St. Louis Park and lived in the City for 50 years or more. His clients are Mr. and Mrs. John Mohler who live at 4313 Brook Avenue South in St. Louis Park. He thought it was important for the Board hear some of the things that have gone on, and wanted Mr. Mohler to tell what he did. Mr. John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue South stated that he has been at this address for about 25 years. This Fall, the building starting going up behind their house or they started preparing to do it, and a call was made to City Hall to ask what was going up. Staff informed them that a double garage was being constructed. She talked to the people in the Inspections Department to discuss some concerns about the size of the building. The Inspections Department said it would be done according to code, so they let it go at that and didn’t pay too much more attention. In November the lumber was delivered and the first part of December they looked over into the yard and could see that there was a lot more lumber delivered than what would go in a double garage. The next morning they came to City Hall and talked to Scott Moore about it. He asked to see the blueprints on the building and after about twenty minutes of looking around the office they couldn’t find the blueprints and thought the building inspector had them. He informed Mr. Moore that he had his suspicions that they are going to be building a second floor. Mr. Moore said there could be a second. At that point he asked Mr. Moore what the maximum height was in St. Louis Park for a garage. He was informed that it was 15 feet. Mr. Moore did a little drawing showing the front of a garage and the height that it would be and where the 15 feet would come to. At that point he felt a little more comfortable and the next day they left for their cabin, where they spend the winter. When they arrived at the cabin they called the Building Inspection Department, and got voice mail. They finally got through to the front and explained the situation. He knew the building codes didn’t allow for a second floor on this building. Two months later (February) a neighbor called to inform him that his suspicions might be correct. It looked like they started to build on the garage again and it was going to include a second floor. So he called City 30 Hall and got a hold of Mr. Moore and asked what was going on at the building on Coolidge Avenue. Mr. Moore transferred him to the man who approved the second floor where he got the Building Inspector’s voice mail. He dialed back to the front desk where he was informed that the Building Inspector was busy with a customer, but when he was done he would be told to call. Three hours later a call still hadn’t been received to return his phone call. So they called John Miller. John Miller, Attorney of Mr. and Mrs. John Mohler stated that he got a call on February 2, 1999 from John Mohler. He was asked if he could go to City Hall and see what he could find out about the detached garage. He went to the City Hall were he talked with the head of the Inspections Department, Mr. Brian Hoffman. He asked for a copy of the plans for the detached garage on Coolidge. Mr. Hoffman made a copy of the plans and that afternoon they were reviewed. The first item which seemed out of place was a 24 feet ridge in the front of the garage. Exhibit C in the appeal is the front section of the building and it indicates total height of 24 feet. Without looking at the ordinance too much, Mr. Miller came back to City but he couldn’t get Mr. Moore, and got the voice mail for Mr. Hoffman. He contacted the City Manager, Charlie Meyer, who infomred him that he needed to see Mr. Moore or the Building Inspector. He was able to meet with Mr. Moore to show him the plans. Mr. Moore said that they have been approved and they were in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Miller disagreed and after some discussion, Mr. Moore realized that the plans were not in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Miller pointed out that in Mr. Moore’s staff report, he stated that a stop work order was posted on the job. Mr. Miller belives that to be false. Scott told me that when we went through those computations, well it can’t be over 19.7 feet so I’ll see that he gets the word and we will reduce it from 24 to 19.7, so that is not really correct. It was my complaint and that is the only thing we talked about and that is about the only thing I knew about at that time, so I hadn’t read the ordinance and I was not well versed in the ordinance. But Scott told me and I read the ordinance and the next morning I was prepared to go in and talk to him about the whole thing. I went in the next morning and Scott told me that he took care of the height, I told him that he can only have 19.7 feet. So I am the one that caused the delay, it wasn’t in compliance, it was 4 feet over the compliance. I talked to Scott and Brian and I told them that reading the ordinance and looking at the plans here, I have several things about this that I don’t agree with. In the first place, the rood if too high and it is not right on the plans. The building is too large and would have more square footage that the 800 square feet. It provides living space and pool room and an office, which I don’t believe is allowed and the plans are absolutely inadequate. If you look at your pictures of the building. In Exhibit D, which is a survey and you look at the plans for the buildings which are Exhibit C, D, E and F and try to figure out how to build that building, you would be amazed. There is really nothing in there to show, and I’m surprise that we have an Inspections Department that is as knowledgeable as we have that would except these plans. If you look at the building that is being built there right now, it really borders on being ridiculous, but anyway they accepted the plans. I said that I don’t think the plans are adequate and that was my thinking. They said to me that the building plans have been approved and if you disagree with out interpretation, we can get an opinion from our attorney. I thought that was great. Actually the second floor hadn’t been started 31 at that time yet, and I wasn’t really as excited cause maybe I should have been. But anyway, I said sure, if we can get an opinion from the attorney, I said I’ve talked this matter over with Bill Thibault who is a planner here and Bill agrees with me. I think would be a great idea if we sent it to the attorney, but I said, how about the fact that we all of these problems and we know that the building height is wrong and probably there are a lot of other things wrong, can’t we get a new set of plans from the owner and hold up construction until the plans are submitted and approved. Scott and Brian told me that they could not do that, that the permit had been granted and they could not do that. I told them that I talked with over with Bill and he agreed with me and this was Thursday and I would get a letter to them by the next day which was Friday. So Bill and I worked up a letter and I told them I would fax that letter to Tom Scott who is the Attorney on Friday, and I wouldn’t deliver a letter to the City. Over the weekend, I looked at our letter and I thought there are a lot of things could be made clearer in the letter and sent out better (there wasn’t any drawing). So Monday morning I talked to Bill and said we should make an addendum to that letter and make it a littler clearer. Bill said he was working with White Bear today, so I can’t do it today, but I’ll do it tomorrow. I called Tom Scott and told him we wanted to make an addendum letter and we would get it to him the next day which was Tuesday. That addendum I thought I should put on the pass out sheets I gave you because it does a couple of things. It points out how we figured the gable roof and it points out the side yards. Now the side yards they have agreed with us and we have forgotten any problem on that, it talks about over 800 square feet. So then, on Wednesday morning I thought I would call Tom Scott and see what else I could do, if I would help him in any way, if I could give me anything that would be helpful and the office told me that Tom Scott was on vacation today and would be on vacation until Monday, so there was nothing I could do. Monday was a holiday, February 15, 1999. I thought it over and many lawyers don’t work on Holiday, so he might not be there on Monday, and if he is, he is probably taking care of the stuff that happened while he was gone, so I’ll call him on Tuesday. I called him on Tuesday morning and I asked him about the project. He said that I talked with the City and generally I agree with the City, but you are clearly right that there is a violation on the setbacks. So I said, Tom when are you going to write your opinion, and he said that he wasn’t going to give a written opinion. I was really kind of disappointed at that because I thought we would have at least something to discuss, but I had to give that up. About the next thing that happened was that Scott Moore made an answer which was dated February 25, 1999 to my letter which had been given to him I went over there the first part of March and I have gone over a couple of times and talked to Scott and I would like to get a copy of the original plans, and he said you have a copy of the original plans, so I have to accept that. So I went into the file. I knew from my stuff that was given to me, that these plans had been faxed and I knew that they had been faxed to the City, because if you look at my Exhibit C which is the first page, you will see at the top of the page December 14th 1348 and then you will see this is a fax transmittal. So I knew that these plans had been faxed to the City and I discovered the facsimile transmission and I got them in the seven sheets that I gave you. I discovered that they had been transmitted to the City, sent to Scott by Michael Christianson re: Garage building permit 12-14-98 and there is a note on the bottom that reads attached are the approved building plans, so Scott must have called him 32 for the approved building plans. Please contact me after review. Now, if these were the building plans that had been submitted, why would he have him review them and contact them. Ordinarily you would send them and that would be it. So that was really kind of unusual to me. I kind of formed the idea that these weren’t the building forms and these are my reasons for it. 1. The facsimile transmission which said review them and get back to me, there must have been something in that. 2. I figured that if anybody came in to the Inspections Department here with plans like this. Scott told me he came in and first he wanted a kitchen, a bathroom and the whole ball of wax. I figured if a guy came in with this elaborate set of plans and your looking at the building that was actually built that is according to this plan and we have on our Exhibit A we got the building permit. It says in there evaluation, really which is the construction cost of $20,000. Anybody who thinks he can build that building isn’t in the construction business or even in the Inspections Department. But down on the bottom here, which is for office use only, it says City Evaluation $20,000 and it is signed by Maurice. 3. The little drawing that Scott gave to John Mohler. He said you won’t have a second floor, this is the way you figure it. It has a gable roof here and you figure you put it up here and figure the mean distance of the gable roof, so he has 15 feet on there. John had said that he said that walking back up there on the west side the kids would be able to walk up there and there wouldn’t be any second floor and they left town and felt good about it. John had apparently told him that he was going to go to Connecticut and Scott gave him Maurice’s number that he wrote down. You have heard all the difficulties. John tried to get some information, left for the east coast thinking that everything was all right. So what is wrong with the building. First of all we have to address the height of the building and Scott has already referred to that in him reply. On page 11 of the ordinance book, it has a deal in there where you figure height of the building. I have included that in my original exhibit which is Exhibit G of out appeal. Scott read a part of it in his introduction to you, and it talks about building height. In all of these building heights, they take the highest part, but they don’t take the highest part where there is a gable roof. It shows you a picture of the gable roof there and it is a lot like Scott’s drawing. Chair Gainsley asked that Mr. Miller not to refer to that drawing as Scott’s drawing because the City does not stipulate to the fact that it was his drawing and that is a questioning factor. I don’t have the provisions here to be a court to establish that so I am not going to allow that. Mr. Miller stated that he didn’t mind giving it to you, but I want it back. 33 Chair Gainsley stated that we have copies of it here, but the City says that Scott Moore didn’t draw it so I am not going to let you refer to it as a piece of evidence. Scott Moore stated that it was not his drawing and he did not draw that. That is not my handwriting. Mr. Miller stated that John Mohler says that it is Scott Moore’s handwriting. John Mohler stated that he would swear under oath that you drew that for me and the handwriting and full note was not yours, but the drawing is yours. Mr. Miller stated is the drawing yours Scott, were you ever out there. Scott Moore stated he was not going to comment. Chair Gainsley stated he was not going to allow this a pivotal piece of evidence. Mr. Miller stated that his Exhibit G sets out the building height under this ordinance. I propose to you that much of this first part here has no correlation to what we are talking about. The important thing here is that the last part of the paragraph, when talking to a gable or to the main distance to the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Now Scott says this is a gable. Now if it isn’t a gable, then they are really in trouble, because a gable gives them a lot more then they ever get under anything else. So, in addition to that, I went to the Webster’s collegiate, and I want to point out to you again that when they are talking about a gable here, they are talking about a front side and a back side, and when you talk about the gable, you are talking about putting a line there between the two eaves so that you get a triangle. Webster’s collegiate dictionary defines gable as a vertical triangular end of a building. From the corners or the eaves (which indicates two sides) to the rich. That is where I seriously disagree with Scott on his interpretation. It gives the owner an advantage in measuring height. if you look at our Exhibit I in our appeal and talk about a gable, you’re talking about two sides that make a ridge. You are talking about an end of a building according to this definition and what you do is take the mean distance on the left side and arrived at a point and we’ve taken the mean distance on the back side, which is a higher situation and arrived at a point and we’ve drawn a line between those two points, and we’ve determined that distance from the garage floor and that is 16.75 feet. Now, Scott may not think that is a gable, but the plans, the owner where he sets out the buildings, the only gable he refers to is on the back side. I like you to refer to Exhibit D. There are three sides to the building there. And if you look in the center one which is the one that faces the Mohler’s where you have all of these casement windows and skylights, it says gable roof line on the back side. So the owner refers to the back side as the gable roof line. I don’t see how you can have any other interpretation, except that you have two roofs come together, making a triangle and that is a gable according to Webster. You just don’t use a front measurement. Now the pitch on the front is 9x12 and the pitch on the back is 3x12, but Scott says you don’t use the back side and that is where one of our major disagreements is. 34 Mr. Miller stated that the ordinance also says that you use the highest gable which would take in the back side and that is all we have done on Exhibit I. Clearly, if there is anything that I am convinced of is that the gable it both sides of the building and by the definition you are looking at the end of a building where they come together. I hate to be so repetitive, but it is so important to me. Mr. Moore also says that the height is more of a perceived dimension. It is not a perceived dimension. You take it from the specific instructions in the ordinance, that is clear. He talks about the pitch and so forth, and that is all right, we can talk about the pitch, but actually what we do is measure half the distance and that is the mean distance of the gable. Now if we look back here at the other Exhibits and look at Exhibit C, the front section, and we are actually looking at the dormer and on the left side there, which is a blank and on the right side is a blank, that it a roof in there. We are not talking about blank space, we are talking about a roof that goes from the ridge way down to the front and where it doesn’t hit the dormer, it is roof there. My thinking and Scott’s thinking are two entirely different matters. He says that you use the east side of the building. I don’t see how you can even figure that you have a gable if you use one side of a building. That is really hard for me to understand. We would be very happy with something that has two sides and makes the gable. So that is all I am going to say about that. The fact is that if you the highest gable up here on the back side, and the reason why you have the highest gable up there and a 3-2 pitch, it because it allows them to have a lot more living space in there. If they didn’t have that and they had the same pitch on both sides, the 9x12 pitch on this side, I know that measures 14.9 or less 15. If we had the same pitch on this side, there wouldn’t be any question about the 15. The point of it is that there is a roof that the owner says is a gable too and you take half of the distance from the eaves to the ridge and you mark that and that is simply your 16.5 and it is over the 15. There isn’t any leeway in an ordinance, you have to go to the Council and petition a variance. They will ask what hardship have you got here. Is there any hardship in this case. The one that has the hardship is John Mohler and the people that live around him. They have to look at this monstrosity. There is one think I would like to mention about Scott’s deal. If you are going to measure the front end of a building and you are suppose to measure from the roof down to the eaves (which indicated two sides) you could probably then go on that backside go out straight or down a little bit and then you could go up with another 10 feet gable. The ordinance says it would allow that, I’m sure of that, but that is the thinking. I think I belabored the point a little bit, and I apologize for that, but it is very important to John Mohler, and very important to me and all the neighbors. Mr. Miller stated that the second point that Scott brought up in his reply was about the setback and they agreed with us on that and the attorney agreed with us on that and there is any question about that, and I am not arguing that. Mr. Miller stated that the next problem is the size of the building and Scott quotes a section (7E). The first part of that section states that the ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25% of the area between the principle structure and the rear lot line. Scott sets the whole thing out at the bottom of his first page of the Case No. 2-99 35 INT. It goes on to say that in R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts it should not exceed 800 square feet. It doesn’t say anything about ground floor area. Chair Gainsley pointed out that the second, third, and fourth word in the first sentence say ground floor area. Mr. Miller said yes, but it talks about it here and I think that it refers to accessory, but I don’t’ think we are even talking about this section and this is why I am getting into my argument. There is a special section not on accessory buildings, but on private garages, and that section I have listed in my print out I have hear. That section is a second page and it talks about what you can do in an R-4 District. In Section 14.5-4.3 E1 we have the following language: The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in R-2 single family residential district and it says 1. A private garage not to exceed 800 square feet or 25% of the rear lot area whichever is less (remember this is written now for a private garage in an R-2 District). Does it say anything about ground area there. No it does not, and it can’t be read into that either. It is a special thing for garages in that particular area, and while Scott says it doesn’t apply in R-3, it does apply in R-3 too. But, no where does it mention ground floor. As a matter of fact, there is a pass out that they give to people who want to do a detached garage. I looked at that in doing my appeal and I thought that the section that shows the front end of the building says that the ground area of the building is 1024 square feet. So I thought I would accept that when I did my appeal, but I did a little more reading on the ordinance and on Page 13 of the ordinance, they have a definition of floor area. I copied that for you and it says the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building including balconies, mezzanines, basements, attics, penthouses, and attached accessory buildings. So when they figured the floor area under this ordinance, they figured the gross horizontal areas. Now that is clear enough. On a 24x24 building, I re-figured what the floor area was according to this ordinance and I copied that for you in the print out. What I did then was using that definition, we have a 24x26 building, and I figured that the two horizontal areas of the building is 1248 square feet, which is even a lot more than the 1024 square feet I had in my appeal which I thought was enough over the 800 square feet and I hadn’t read that definition. I say that the print out doesn’t refer to ground floor area, it says 800 square feet. Mr. Miller stated that now we get down to a problem in relation to the buildings there and the size of the lot. Again, I made an assumption, before I read the definition of floor area. So now, we have 1248 square feet in the detached garage and the figure on the appeal was far less. I went over to the building and took the accessory measurement, but when I saw that they include the whole horizontal area, then I had to re-figure. I had to use the survey that was furnished to us. We don’t have the liberty to go out there and take any measurements, so I used the survey and according to the survey the house has two floors with 948 square feet on the first floor. So two times that would be 1896 square feet plus the 1248 for the detached garage make is 3144 square feet. Now if we are limited in our lots to 30% of the floor area in relation to the lot area, this lot area is 57x410 which is 7980 square feet. If we take 30% of that you get 2394 square feet allowable. We got 750 or 800 square feet over the allowable floor area according to the definition in the 36 ordinance. Now Mr. Moore doesn’t make any reference to that at all, and I suppose he thought it was minimal and I didn’t think too much about it until I read the ordinance. Mr. Miller stated there isn’t any doubt about what the owner had in mind here. Scott says that he came in with plans to put in a kitchen, bathroom and second floor he had living space, pool room and office space. I submit to you that this is far in excess usage of what he is allowed under the ordinance. Actually, if he could build according to the ordinance, he would probably have another problem, and if you looked at it out there you would probably agree with me. This building is really not much less than square footage of his house and they might think that even if it could be built it would not be a detached garage, which I would not characterize it as, but it would be another primary building, but I am not here to argue that. Mr. Miller stated that I would like to point out a few other things. I mentioned to you the meager plans for a building like that, and you have the big blow ups there which indicate how big that building is and how it looks from the Mohler’s backyard and what a nice backyard the Mohler’s have and how nice they take care of it, this is a disaster to them. When I sent them these plans in Connecticut they couldn’t believe it. Chair Gainsley indicated that the Commissioners have all been out to the site. Mr. Miller stated that I think the citizens of St. Louis Park look to your Board for interpretation of zoning laws and to see that they are obeyed in the City. I was just thinking about something in the paper today which has some correlation. They City of St. Louis Park closed down a concrete plant. Scott probably knows more about this than I do, but they closed it down because it was a violation or the ordinance. I don’t know how the case came out in the District Court, because all I know is the newspaper report, but the case was appealed to the appeals court here and the appeals court held with the City. What the owner wanted the City to do, was to pay them for their property. The City said that it was a violation of the ordinance, we don’t have to condemn your property of pay you for the property. The court of appeals and agreed with the City and what happened in the legislature yesterday, they passed a bill that substantiates what the City did. They made a law that if it was a violation of the ordinance they don’t have any rights. Mr. Miller stated that I want to say a couple things about the law. I have read a number of cases and I am honest with you and I can tell you this. Where you have a situation here as I see it, where there is a permit granted that doesn’t conform to the ordinance, the court said that the permit is void and the owner has any rights to come back. The owner is charged with constructive knowledge of what the ordinances are. Not only doesn’t he have any right if the permit is void, but he should not have accessed for the permit in the first place, because he is charged with knowledge of what the ordinances are. The courts all hold that case, and I’ll site you a couple of things. Generally zoning ordinances are regarded as being aimed at conserving property values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. (53 Northwestern 27). Another case: When zones are established and citizens buy an improved property relying on restrictions imposed by law, 37 they have a right to permanency and security that the law should afford (97 Northwestern Second 273). The main case on this whole problem is a case Lowry verses the City of Mankato (42 Northwestern Second 553): A building permit issued in violation of the zoning ordinance by an official lacking power to alter or vary the ordinance (and there is nobody here that has power to do that, except the Council) the permit is void and the zoning regulation may be enforced not withstanding the fact that the permitee may have commenced building operation. They go on to say that construction that would permit the use of premises in question for a proposed garage should be voided for the reason that it would in affect authorize a use which the plain intention of the ordinance was to prohibit. They go on to say the reason given for the rule by authorities that both the granting of the permit, and the varying of the zoning restriction involve the exercise of government power which cannot be exercised by an officer upon who it has not been conferred nor set at naught by the action of a property owner proceeding in defiance thereof. In the Alexander case here they say experience has shown that the wisdom of the prevailing rule that persons dealing with municipal officers and agents are bond by constructive notice of the law and public records with respect to the powers and functions of such officers and agents. In other words, they can’t rely on that. Mr. Miller stated that I submit to you that we’ve done everything we could. The Mohler’s came here trying to figure out what was going to happen, the plans were lost and couldn’t be found. They were told there was not going to be a second story. They were told and I was told that it was building according to ordinance, before I really knew what the ordinance was. I got the plans and I voiced an objection to Scott and Brian and I tried to get them to stop the thing, because it wasn’t being built at that time. One thing that bothered me too. Scott and I have had good relations, but I just think he made a mistake. I looked at the file one day and see a letter in there dated February 8th and I read that letter and it was the same letter that I got on February 25th. I was a little concerned that that’s the letter that was written before they got my addendum and before they talked to the attorney, before we had any discussion, but its the same letter and it really doesn’t matter. I want to say that this is a nice neighborhood, the ordinance is designed to preserve the character neighborhood. Mr. Miller stated that I suggest that the ordinance is violated in height, it doesn’t figure a gable roof, and we have to figure the highest gable, t doesn’t meet the square footage, the precise thing that was designed for R-2 and private garage, and it doesn’t meet the square footage of the total all square footage in relation to the lot. If we are going to interpret this ordinance the way that we are trying to interpret here, I say that everybody that has a nice lot in St. Louis Park, who can have a building like that be put within 5 feet of their lot line, better shake in their boots, cause it is going to happen. Walter Walker, 4301 Brook Avenue South, three houses north of John Mohler. Two points I would like to make. I have a four season porch on the back of my house which is in affect a family room. In looking out on the Slattery home on Coolidge, as I look at it, the roof line of this garage is higher than the roof line of the house itself. It’s big and tall. The other point I’d like to make is this is a garage, at least it is so stated on the permit, but 38 the layout is such that with some modifications it could be living quarters, that is if they put water and sanitary drain. This is apparently not going in at this time, but what is to prevent them from doing that sometime in the future. Of course it doesn’t fit with the code at the present time, but many things are done inside four walls without the knowledge of the City or the Inspection Department and they may force them to take it out, but to me it appears like they are going from a residential neighborhood to a place where you have the potential for a second dwelling. Commissioner Robertson stated that you put a lot of weight on Webster’s definition of gable and if you read the last line talking about the height of the building it talks about the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. How would you apply Webster’s definition to a hip roof. Mr. Miller stated that I think a hip roof is like that and it goes up like that and then it comes down. Commissioner Robertson stated that a hip roof angles down on all sides. Mr. Miller stated you have to use the highest gable on the building whatever that is. Commissioner Robertson stated that is correct, but I’m saying that Webster’s definition is not a construction term. There are many terms in construction and architecture that are not found in a Webster’s dictionary. I am an architect and my word processor kills out most of my words on spell check. Mr. Miller asked if you would find a gable by looking at the front one side. Commissioner Robertson indicated yes, a gable can easily have one end. Mr. Miller stated he wasn’t talking about one end, I’m talking about the front end of the building. Commissioner Robertson said that if you look at the front of the building, the form over the garage door on the east is a gable. Mr. Miller stated he disagreed with that and the owner calls it a dormer, and I call it a dormer. Commissioner Robertson stated that it is still by definition of a roof form is a gable. This text comes directly from the uniform building code. Chair Gainsley stated it was a word of art, it is not a dictionary meaning. William Thibault, 454 Ford Road, St. Louis Park, stated that I think the simplest explanation is simply this. The City’s response to the appeal, does not dispute the 39 measurement or the fact that it is or is not a gable. I think you would have to conclude that it meets the definition of gable. So whatever the definition may be of a hip roof, would probably not be material to this because we are really focusing on a gable. If you decide that it is part of the definition that you are going to use and the definitions says that you must take the mean distance of the highest gable. The starting point, the City agrees, is the east side of the garage that gives you the beginning point. The next point that you take to determine the highest is to take any gable that you want on there, but perhaps take all of them, find the mean distance of all of the gables, the one with the highest it the one that you apply. Then you conclude that the 16.75 in Exhibit I gives you the mean distance of that gable which is 16.75 feet above the floor or above the grade in front of the garage. One of the reasons the neighbors think that that is such a high building perhaps is that the ordinance at the beginning of that definition says that you take the curb in the front or the grade at the garage in this case or the accessory building whichever is the highest. So you get a higher starting point, that starting point is four or five feet higher than the curb. The conclusion is that if you agree that the measurement on Exhibit I property reflects the mean distance of that gable, then you must apply that as the definition is written that is the highest gable, and the mean distance of the highest gable. Commissioner Robertson stated that he disagrees in that this verbiage comes through the uniform building code which refers to the absolute height of the building because we are looking at life safety issues. It’s referenced at them is the highest grade all around the building. The idea that that the zoning looks at perceived height of a building is that it looks at as perceived from the public right of way which is why your datum point does not go all the way around the building, but it is from the front curb, or from the facade facing the right of way and it measures to the highest gable that is visible from the right of way. Now on this, the ridge is the highest point, it’s kind of a common high point. The highest point, it is kind of a common high point, the highest point of the building is visible from all sides, but the perceived height as I read it, is from looking at the east elevation of the building and it has nothing to do, I agree that if the building is rotated 90 degrees you would take the gable from the hip or 3x12 slope, but since that is on the back side of the building, that is not what is taken into account. What you take into account is strictly viewed from the east elevation. If you look at the drawing of the east elevation, the drawing with the 10, 7 and 7 on it, not taking what those numbers are right now, but that is the correct elevation by which to take it and by that drawing, the height of the building would be 17 feet if the numbers are accurate, but that is the side we would look at. William Thibault stated that Mr. Gainsley I submit the appeal is from the zoning ordinance, and it is a zoning determination, its the proper ordinance to use when applying land use and development regulations in the City. The building code has a different function and the ordinance does not use the work perceived. The applicant in this appeal has done exactly what is stated in the front page of your report, that paragraph that deals with the definition in Section 14:3-1. It gives you the first half of that paragraph the starting point. Everyone seems to agree that the starting point is not the curb level, because that it lower, it is the highest point, it is the east side of that accessory building. 40 The second thing it says is that if he finds all those various building types, many of which go to the top to the roof, on the flat roof, or to the peak on a dome. You get to the very end there, the last word says, now remember we have agreement you start at the east side of the building, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitch or hip roof. If you agree that the drawing in Exhibit I can be interpreted as a gable, which I think every would, it meets the same gable definition or application if you use any other side of the building, you come up with a dimension of 16.75 feet, that is higher than 15 feet, so therefore it does not meet the maximum height. Secondly, the building officials, zoning administrator has decided not to take the mean distance of that gable, but instead to take one of the lower gables. I said to the attorney representing the client here, what if the house or the garage or the accessory building had 4, 5 or 6 gables. You don’t take the lowest one, you take the mean distance of the highest one and perceived is not in the zoning ordinance and it is a very straight forward, simple application of the ordinance. Chair Gainsley asked that the Board take a 5 minute break. Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections stated that first off I do want to apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Mohler and everyone else here is because some of what I have heard tonight, I have not been aware of and there is absolutely excuse why you are not getting phone calls back within a day. That is not acceptable to me, and I did not know about it. If a situation like that every arises, please call me and ask for the Manager of the Department. As far as the plans once again, there has been some confusion, but we made every effort to basically have the plans here and they are accurate and the bottom line is does the project out on the site meet the code. One of the things that we need to be aware of when we are doing code enforcement, and I am responsible for the zoning, as well as, the building end of it is that the applicant basically has a right to receive a right to receive a permit unless we can say that it is absolutely in violation of code. This is something that we talked about with our City Attorney quite a bit, when is a tie, as an example. If I came in and asked for a permit, and the code may be vague or it may indicate one way or the other, basically that applicant wins the tie and the City is obliged to give the permit to the applicant. Sometimes that always doesn’t give the result maybe the community wants, but it is something legally we deal with. The last issue I have is that we realize that sometimes the City’s zoning code may allow things that don’t seem to fit into neighborhoods and some of our Councilmembers are aware of this too. Sometime next month I will be taking some zoning issues, and this is one of them, to a study session, just to let the Council know that here are some things that we have discovered in the zoning code. Basically it is up to the Council to decide if this is the intent of what we want to have in the community, if so they can direct Staff to do code amendments or else they can decide that this is truly the code they want to have. So we are going to be talking to Council about some general zoning issues and areas where it is time to look at what the code allows. Lynn Flaherty, 4317 Brook Avenue, next door to John Mohler and kiddy corner to the building in question. She stated that all of you stated, or actually you spoke for everyone else, you said trust me, we have looked at the building from your view point. I checked 41 with Mr. Mohler, I checked with Marjorie who lives next door to me, and I know myself, I don’t believe my children allowed anybody into our yard without my permission, and I am wondering what viewpoint you got of the building. Because it is really difficult to see from the street. If you are talking about how it is viewed from the street, so you are looking from the street from their point of view and from our point of view. But where we look at it is from our backyard. I don’ t believe anybody had permission from myself, Marjorie or from John to go into our backyards. I would have more than likely let you go in my backyard, so I am wondering how did you get that view point. Chair Gainsley stated that Ms. Flaherty may comment, but you can’t ask up questions. You can say anything you wish, but we don’t answer questions. Ms. Flaherty stated that she is a tax payer in St. Louis Park, therefore, you are all people that have been appointed and basically you work for us, the tax payers of St. Louis Park. If I cannot ask you a question about how you arrived at something and you refuse to answer, I don’t have much trust. Chair Gainsley stated that we simply visited the area, the answer is very easy and very short. We didn’t have to go in your area to see the building behind his house. Ms. Flaherty stated that I believe you do. Chair Gainsley stated that was a matter of contention and you can certainly think that if you wish. Ms. Flaherty stated that you can see it very well from Morningside, but from our part of the street you really need to be in the backyard, and I welcome all of you to come into my backyard, let me know when you are coming and I will show you what it looks like and I am sure that John and Marjorie would do the same, and I can’t speak for anybody else here necessarily, but if that was in your backyard, and you spoke about the intent of the ordinance, I think if you looked at it, you’d see that this building was clearly not the intent of the ordinance. I personally feel that if I was working for the City of St. Louis Park, if you are approving something, the intent of the ordinance should be more important than the specific whether this is 1.5 inch or 1.25 inch. The intent is not to have a second building there. I have one other question. I will pose this question, but you don’t have to answer it, because I can’t ask questions. Something to keep in mind, maybe you might look at the plans. Is there a utility sink in that garage, if there is, they have water access already and that water access could very easily be brought up to the second floor and it becomes a livable building. Chair Gainsley stated that there was not a utility sink in the garage. Mr. Miller stated that Scott brought up a couple of things. He talked about the building on the west side being lower than the building on the east side. That does something my perception. When I see something higher up there. I don’t think that his measurement is 42 in the code and that is where we have a basic disagreement too. And with regard to his analysis of the specific provision for a garage in R-2, my interpretation, and I have interpreted a few ordinances. My interpretations have always said that you use the interpretation of the general in light of the specific. Now the general doesn’t say ground area. You can assume that it might be ground area, or you can assume that it might not be. I say that the word it there refers to accessory building and not ground area and that is a case for the courts. Scott referred to a letter from the attorney in which he says I generally agree with staff’s interpretation. Well, I heard that over the telephone. But, his specific deal here, the garage does not exceed the maximum 15 feet on the street side, we don’t deny that. We talk about the highest gable, we don’t talk about the east side that you can see from the street. I don’t disagree with that, but I disagree with the height as determined. Commissioner Reel stated that Mr. Miller it looks like we are going to be stuck on semantics for the evening. I want to settle first then the ground floor question. As you look at the 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e) which says that total ground area in the R-1, R-2 or R-3. Mr. Miller, would you agree that this means that at least one of those has to have a ground floor area ratio. Mr. Miller stated that he would not agree. Commissioner Reel stated that would not imply to you that one of them has somewhere in its specific code. Mr. Miller stated that Scott says that it doesn’t apply in one area, but I don’t even agree with that. William Thibault stated he would like to make one comment about that paragraph. As far as the it referring to the ground area, or for the accessory building, as I read that paragraph, ground floor area is singular and accessory buildings is plural and it references a singular object. Commissioner Robertson asked dot make one quick response Mr. Chairman. The ordinance in the rules in the front section states that the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. That is very common in ordinances and that is written intentionally so that you don’t get into the dispute whether you are talking about a single item or plural item throughout the construction. I can give you the section number on that very quickly. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reel stated that what I was getting at is on Page 79, the particular paragraph mentions ground floor area, lists out R-1, R-2, R-3. At least one of those has to have it. Mr. Miller pointed out that the R-2 description on Page 95 excludes the ground floor area requirement. What I wanted to get at is that all three of the specific 43 ones exclude the word ground floor, which takes us back to the original paragraph covering all saying the ground floor area ratio. To me that puts that particular question to rest. Commissioner Robertson stated he would agree with that and he would revisit once again the measurement on the building height. I have dealt with a lot of building height issues over the years myself, and as the variation of this text from a general thing like a building code to the zoning, it is looking at how the community perceives the building and in the same way that you have a limit on possibly on a three story building, it can have a walk out condition in the back which is not visible from the front and is allowed, but from the back it may look like four story, or actually we saw one not to long ago that was a five story from the back. It is as perceived from the street is the height of the building as it is addressed by the community. So I feel very firm in reading it and dealing with different communities including this was on building height, is that you take the height based on the flat drawing of the elevation that faces the public right of way, in this case the east elevation. Mr. Miller has said that he has agreed with the measurements as Scott has called them out if they are based on the east side of the building. Mr. Miller thinks they should be based on the north side of the building, but as I read my perception of the ordinance, it that you take everything from the public right of way side. Commissioner Bloyer stated that she wanted to state first off that I did take go and take a look from the brook side, and there were a couple of neighbors out there who were probably wondering what this black grand am doing the slow roll was doing going down the street. There were perspectives by the way where you could see further South on Brook of that same block where you could see the building much better by the way. As a matter of fact, I thought somebody was going to come out and shoot me considering I was going down somebody’s driveway and trying to take one heck of a good look. Unfortunately, you property had a rather forbidding fence so it was going to be difficult to get into the back yard, which your next door neighbor has a rather long driveway with a chain linked fence so I’m on my tippy toes peeking. This is however an interpretive case and so it is really not specific to a particular property. It obviously deals with this property, but we are interpreting it. I have to take issue in particular with not only 14:5- 4.1(A)(7)(e) but also the deconstruction of building height. Quite frankly, what you are trying to do is to break it down into two pieces and make the second portion which measures the mean distance of the highest gable, making that a stand alone sentence and that is not the intent. By the way, I am a corporate income tax accountant. The reason I bring that up, I deal quite a bit with the law and I also deal quite a bit with cases are tried on the basis of law. What I have consistently seen is especially on an interpretation case, they first to the law, they will go to the uniform building code, they will go to any preambles to establish intent and they will look quite heavily on this body on our interpretation of this law to determine what the intent was. I would have to agree with the other Commissioners at this point that they did not intend for deconstruction, they very clearly stated building height on Page 11 under 3-1 definitions, that it is suppose to be from the finished grade level or the curb line. They did not intend for it to be deconstructed and take in a completely different elevation and start measuring from there. 44 And then on Page 79 where you are talking about the ground floor area, that I would say they very clearly intended in all points of that particular to be talking about ground floor area, they didn’t mean to add every single floor that they could possible find in the building. Commissioner Roberts stated that he probably went about this different than the other Commissioners in that I didn’t visit the property because it was kind of a finding of fact. I have lived in St. Louis Park for 20 years and been on Board as a volunteer for about 9- 10 years now. They are asking me for my experience in dealing with the zoning code, looking at this as a case to apply the zoning code and give my interpretation of it, just like Mr. Miller has given his interpretation on it very well already. I went through this, I didn’t even read Scott’s report. I read Mr. Miller’s thing first to see what his arguments were. As I went through it, I went through the ordinance and got my interpretation. I guess I would say, with regard to the minimum height, the way I read the ordinance is that we are dealing with the part of the building that faces the pubic street. To me it is the gable that is facing the public street right of way, so that is where the measurement should be made. In my reading, that is what I thought it should be even before I read Scott’s about how they measured it and his arguments. It’s my interpretation of the ordinance is what I am going off of. When I looked at the rear and side yard ones, which have since corrected. I looked at your Exhibits and I noted on the plan that it had been fixed. There was notation on there saying that the eaves have been cut back to 1 foot instead of 2 feet, so I figured that maybe they aren’t going to argue that because it really doesn’t make sense now. With regard to the square footage, again I looked at the ordinance which was very specific as far as dealing with accessory buildings and that is the one that I saw made the most sense for me to interpret as what to apply to this. I read the one that you stated and this one made more sense and was more applicable. Also with regard to the ground floor ratio, I assume if Mr. Miller didn’t have the most up to date ordinance, but since we do get those things on a regular basis to read and understand, I figured that one was probably going to be either argued or not taken up or we could dismiss that one right away as well. I figured that was what I was suppose to be doing, interpret the zoning ordinance per this case and that is what I have done. I then read Scott Moore’s report and most of the things that he stated out there were the things that I had already made up my own mind about. Chair Gainsley stated that this case involves a property, but it is really about an ordinance and the property is a secondary issue here and the ordinance is a primary issue here. In looking at the ordinance, I have to conclude that the Staff’s report presents it fairly and interprets the ordinance as it is shown, especially as it regards the height and as is regards the area of the building, the articles and the ordinance say ground floor area, to me that makes sense. I might have been more helpful if the last sentence might have contained a ground floor comment, but it obviously refers back to the beginning of the paragraph anyway. To me in reading it as a whole, it seemed to be that they intended the ground floor area to be that type of measurement that was required. I took it a little bit more from Commissioner Robert’s point of view afterward, but I do agree with the other Commissioners that I believe that the staff’s interpretation is essentially correct. 45 Mr. Miller asked to submit another document. Chair Gainsley indicated that it really doesn’t have a bearing on this. We are talking about an interpretation of the ordinance here, and the property is not is what is in question. Commissioner Reel stated that there is one last portion of the appeal here that I’m guessing we are all in agreement on which is the usage that has not been addressed. Myself particularly about the usage we can always sit here and say it could be turned into this down the road. We can always say that a garage can be used for storage of ordinance, so we should not approve any garages. That is not what we are expected to do, and it is not what the City is expected to is to guess on what could come of it. It is only allowed to go off of what is proposed. There is currently no water not accessories, bathroom, toilets, kitchen accessory in the plan and that is all that the City has to work from. For myself, I just wanted to have this on the public record, because it is part of the appeal addressing that particular point of contention. Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded to accept staff’s findings. Motion passed Unanimously. Vote of 5-0. Scott Moore stated that you have a right to appeal the Board’s decision to the City Council. What we need is a written request from you within the next 10 days. Mr. Miller stated that he wanted the original plans be entered into the public record. Mr. Moore stated that the original plans cannot be made part of the public record, but we can make a copy of the original. Mr. Miller stated that he didn’t want a copy. Chair Gainsley stated that this is argumentative and he was not going to allow this and that Mr. Miller should talk with the Staff outside of this meeting. 46 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of June 7, 1999 8a. Application from Minnesota Youth Athletic Services to conduct lawful gambling (pull tabs) at the Classic Café located at 4700 Excelsior Boulevard. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution. Background: The Minnesota Youth Athletic Services has submitted a completed application to conduct lawful gambling (pull tabs) at the Classic Café located at 4700 Excelsior Boulevard. The State Gambling Board requires Council approval before granting a premises permit. A copy of the resolution, if adopted, will be submitted to the State. Investigation: The Police Department investigated the principals and no problems were found. Attachments: Proposed resolution Prepared by: Cindy Kaiser, Licensing Representative Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 47 RESOLUTION NO.___________ A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING MINNESOTA YOUTH ATHLETIC SERVICES TO BE CONDUCTED AT 4700 EXCELSIOR BLVD (CLASSIC CAFÉ) WHERAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-1600 et seq., provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board (“Board”); and WHERAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premises permit for the site; and WHERAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; said resolution shall have been adopted within 60 days of the date the application was received by the City Clerk; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-1600 et seq., shall not be construed to require the City to undertake any responsibility for enforcing compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 other than those provisions related to the issuance of premises permits as required in MSA Section 349.213; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved: APPLICANT & LOCATION: Minnesota Youth Athletic Services 4700 Excelsior Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 7, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 48 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of June 7, 1999 8b. Resolution appointing Third Ward Councilmember Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution appointing __________________ to the office of Ward Three Councilmember effective ___________. Background: Due to the recent resignation of former Mayor Gail Dorfman and the subsequent shift in Council positions, a vacancy for Third Ward Councilmember was declared on April 5, 1999. Section 2.05 of the City Charter calls for Council to declare a vacancy and to appoint an eligible person to fill the seat. Because this vacancy occurred more than ninety days prior to the next scheduled City election, the office will stand for election in November of 1999 and the interim appointment will be for a term to end on January 3, 2000. Since declaring the vacancy, Council has undergone a recruitment and selection process which included advertisement of the vacancy in the St. Louis Park Official Newspaper, Community Cable TV, neighborhood newsletters and direct recruitment. Several applications were submitted and interviews have been conducted. Recommended Action: Mayor may receive nominations for the appointment of Ward Three Councilmember. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer 49 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING ________________________ TO THE OFFICE OF WARD THREE COUNCILMEMBER WHEREAS, Ward Three Councilmember, Ronald Latz has accepted the position of Councilmember At-Large B leaving a vacancy in the office for a term expiring January 3, 2000 and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the City Charter the Council has accepted the resignation and declared a vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term; and WHEREAS, Council may appoint an eligible person to fill that vacancy during the interim before a duly elected successor assumes office; and WHEREAS, Council has undertaken a recruitment and selection process, has carefully reviewed the qualifications of candidates for the interim appoint and has considered the welfare of Ward III residents and the City as a whole. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that __________ is hereby appointed Ward Three Councilmember effective __________ for the remainder of the term to expire on January 3, 2000. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 7, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 50 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of June 7, 1999 8c. Ratification of an appointment to the position of Interim Director of Finance, and authorization of a contract with RHI Management Resources This action appoints John Brooks as Interim Director of Finance pending the selection of a permanent Director of Finance, and authorizes a contract with a firm which specializes in placement of temporary financial professionals. Recommended Action: Motion to ratify the appointment of John Brooks to the position of Interim Director of Finance effective June 10, 1999. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with RHI Management Resources for temporary financial professional services. Background: Kathleen McBride has served as Director of Finance since June 1993 and has submitted her resignation effective June 9, 1999. The City Manager is recommending that a temporary appointment be made to the position while a search and selection process is conducted for a permanent replacement. The City Ordinance Code provides that the City Manager may serve as a department director during an interim period. That action is not recommended in this case in part because the City Manager and the Director of Finance are co-signers on most financial instruments of the City. One signature on these documents would not provide for reasonable controls. In addition, the accounting section of the Finance Department has experienced considerable staff change lately and is operating with one employee on full time leave, one on part time leave, one newly appointed employee and one temporary employee. Given the staffing issues and the workload at this time of year there is a clear need for a person to fill the role of Finance Director. The temporary appointment is expected to last between 2 and 3 months. During that time the 2000 budget will be prepared, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report will be filed and the annual Tax Increment Financing Reports will be completed. These will all be in addition to the normal workload in the department. Following Ms. McBrides’s resignation, contacts were made to other cities to see if there were well-qualified candidates available to fill our position on short notice. It was discovered that the City of Crystal had just completed a 10 month interim appointment while they were evaluating the position of Finance Director and subsequently filling that position. Crystal had appointed John Brooks as their Interim Finance Director from June 1998 through April 1999. During that time Mr. Brooks handled all finance operations that he would be called upon to handle in St. 51 Louis Park. The Crystal City Manager reported that they were very satisfied with the services provided by Mr. Brooks. He also has about 30 years of experience in the private and non – profit sectors in a variety of financial positions including Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Brooks is employed by RHI Management Resources which is a firm specializing in project financial professionals. Staff recommends that we enter into an agreement with RHI for the temporary period. The cost of the contract is $75 per hour and we anticipate a total contract cost of between $20,000 and $35,000 depending on how soon we are able to recruit a new Director. Attachments: Contract with RHI Management Resources Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 52 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d Meeting of June7, 1999 8d. Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park The Friends of the Arts presented the results of their yearlong strategic planning process to the City Council on May 24, 1999. The City Council is now being asked to adopt a resolution of support for the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution of support for the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park Special Note: New information has been added to the Strategic Plan since it was presented to council on May 24th, specifically the chart entitled: “Implementation Strategies for the City Council to Consider Immediately.” Background: Friends of the Arts formed in 1995 as a voluntary citizen initiative to provide arts programming in St. Louis Park. Their initial activities included Theatre in the Park, Summer Concert Series and the ‘Celebrate the Arts Festival. In 1998, Friends of the Arts received funding from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council and the City of St. Louis Park to begin a strategic planning process. Through community surveys, town meetings and focus groups, city residents expressed their interest in the types of arts education, events and resources which they felt would benefit themselves, their families and their broader community. The Strategic Plan for the Arts is the culmination of the community information gathering process. Recommendation: A motion to adopt a resolution of support for the basic goals of the Strategic Plan for the Arts is recommended by staff. However, there is a concern that very little has been done to evaluate the time and resources that would be required by city staff to assist in implementing the recommended strategies. Time is needed to evaluate how these efforts may or may not fit into the priorities already established by the city for this year and next year. The plan calls for a very aggressive timeline, which may be difficult to achieve considering the amount of collaboration required with such a wide variety of community organizations. Additionally, more cooperative discussion is requested between City Department Directors and Friends of the Arts to identify possible parts of the plan, which may be more easily implemented through integrating them into current city programs. Attachments: Resolution and Strategic Plan for the Arts Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 53 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE 1999 FRIENDS OF THE ARTS STRATEGIC PLAN WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park shares in the belief that art provides great value to us all – in our homes, in our places of work and play, and in our places of education and worship; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park acknowledges the commitment that Friends of the Arts provides to the community in supporting a culture where arts play a greater role in the lives of our citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park appreciates the outstanding effort undertaken by Friends of the Arts to implement a strategic planning process and develop with community input and participation a Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park at the May 24, 1999, Council Study Session and has agreed to the overall purpose and goals of the plan without a commitment to specific implementation strategies or monetary support at this time; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, to support the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of Saint Louis Park as presented by the Friends of the Arts on June 2, 1999. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 7, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 54 Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park Presented by Friends of the Arts Draft Seven June 2, 1999 55 Welcome The City of St. Louis Park, working in collaboration with the St. Louis Park School District (including community education and parks and recreation), and the Friends of the Arts (FOTA), has supported quality art programming through a number of venues for several years. Although the city's vision statement was completed in 1994, it became evident that the plan did not articulate a blueprint for celebrating and supporting a broad definition of the arts for St. Louis Park. A voluntary citizen initiative resulted in the creation of St. Louis Park's first arts council in 1995, which came to be known as Friends of the Arts. New and enhanced programs were launched which included the successful Theater in the Park, Summer Concert Series, and the “Celebrate the Arts” Festival. The next year, as programming grew, the need for art space and art resources initiated the launch of community focus groups or "charettes" to further develop a plan for arts in St. Louis Park. Beginning in 1997, as the City began moving towards the creation of a "community focal point" through the new Park Commons redevelopment project, more grassroots support of art programming, art space and the visual arts emerged. The search to connect this new development with art expansion goals began. With financial support from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council (MRAC), a strategic planning process was launched by Friends of the Arts in the fall of 1998. Through the hard work of many volunteers, a Strategic Plan was completed and presented to the City Council for approval in June 1999. We are proud to endorse this new Vision for the Arts. As a city, we can do much more to support a culture where the arts play a greater role in the lives of our citizens. This plan reinforces the belief that art provides great value to all of us - in our homes, in our places of work and play, and in our places of education and worship. We thank the many volunteers who have given countless hours of their time to ensure that the City of St. Louis Park will move into the 21st century with a community Vision for the Arts. For all of us. St. Louis Park City Council June 2, 1999 56 Introduction to Friends of the Arts and The Vision for Arts for St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts (FOTA), the guiding force behind the creation of this Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park, is proud to have served as the lead collaborator in this wonderful endeavor. We join the City in expressing our gratitude for the commitment of many people who have worked to make this Vision for the Arts a reality. Our mission - supporting, promoting, and enhancing the arts in St. Louis Park - serves our purposes just as it did when it was first articulated four years ago. We share with you the tenets that support our vision: • Art and artists are essential to the identity of a community • There is power in art that is diverse and celebrates different cultures and life experiences • Collaboration with people is an essential means of promoting and inspiring art and art forms for a broader community We work to: • Ensure access to the arts for everyone • Promote strong community support for the arts by enhancing existing arts programs and creating new arts opportunities • Be a resource for community members, artists, schools, and existing programs • Provide multi-generational and multi-cultural arts events This plan addresses two major outcomes from the strategic planning process. First, to recommend a set of actions to enhance individual growth, community identity, and economic strength in St. Louis Park through the arts for the next three to five years; and second, to create a set of goals, actions, and tools for implementation, including a proposal for a stronger partnership with the City administration and the community's leaders in arts. We welcome your comments and observations regarding this Vision for the Arts. And we invite you to join us in our future endeavors. Friends of the Arts Board of Directors June 2, 1999 57 St. Louis Park's Vision for the Arts (Goals) 1. Provide a broad spectrum of quality arts programming that would strategically include all members of the community through the Friends of the Arts, public and private schools, community education and the parks & recreation department. 2. Create a community arts information and resource service for the purpose of linking the arts and artists with St. Louis Park citizens in order to support the goals of a better informed community, better arts access, and higher levels of visibility/promotion of the arts. 3. Implement an integrated plan to design, build, and operate a Center for the Arts for St. Louis Park. 4. Create private/public initiatives to integrate visual arts and design elements in new development and redevelopment projects throughout the city. Supporting Strategies for the above goals: 1. Secure a professional arts administrator/consultant to assist in the implementation of the strategic plan and to coordinate arts programming between the private and public schools, community education, parks & recreation, Friends of the Arts programming. 2. Re-organize Friends of the Arts as an integrated arts consortium non- profit agency to better represent the private and public schools, community education, parks and recreation, and the community-at- large. 3. Implement public and private funding systems to support art programming, artists, arts organizations, and students of art in St. Louis Park. 4. Promote, through electronic and print media, that arts and culture are a key component of the city's offerings. 58 The Goals of the Strategic Plan for Arts in St. Louis Park Goal 1: Provide a broad spectrum of quality arts programming that would strategically include all members of the community through the Friends of the Arts, our public and private schools, community education and the parks & recreation department. Recommended action steps: • Hire professional arts administrator for the overall coordination of arts programming in St Louis Park (Winter 1999) • Create an arts education task force to study ways to strengthen arts offerings in the public schools, community education, Parks and Recreation departments and Friends of the Arts (Winter 1999) • Implement the organizational chart outlined in this document (Spring 2000) • Conduct initial research as to the extent of neighboring community/schools arts offerings and curriculum (Spring 2000) • Conduct a thorough study of existing art spaces, their utilization, and missed opportunities (Spring 2000) • Complete a study and make recommendations for new and improved art programming and coordination (Winter 2000) • Tie in with the benefits in arts education as identified by the National Endowment for the Arts (ongoing) 1. To give young people a sense of civilization 2. To foster creativity 3. To teach effective communication 4. To provide tools for critical assessment of what one reads, sees and hears • Make effective use of existing public and private facilities throughout the city (ongoing) • Utilize neighborhood connections and programming (ongoing) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year (ongoing) Goal 2: Create a community arts information and resource service for the purpose of linking the arts and artists with St. Louis Park citizens in order to support the goals of a better informed community, better arts access, and higher levels of visibility/promotion of the arts. Recommended action steps: • Secure funding for space, staff, and equipment (Fall 1999) • Create targeted publications, including a quarterly newsletter (Spring 1999) • Create a website and connect to other electronic media (Summer 2000) 59 • Develop a resource inventory (Winter 2000) • Connect with existing resources such as the library system (2001) • Develop centralized, comprehensive information and support services for members of the community (2001) • Educate and involve the public through effective promotion and distribution of information (2001) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year. (ongoing) Goal 3: Implement an integrated plan to design, build, and operate a Center for the Arts for St. Louis Park. Recommended action steps: • Create a public citizen response mechanism that reiterates confirmation of previous community feedback and direction of the need for a new art center: (Enlist community support and investment) (Fall/Winter 1999) • New Art Center would explore multiple community use models and could contain: • Performance space • Exhibition space • Rehearsal space • Classrooms • Studio space and studio rental space • Community Rooms • Resource Center/library • Offices for area arts organizations • Identify and secure consultant to launch and conduct a feasibility study (Winter 1999) • Conduct feasibility study (Spring-Summer 2000) • Feasibility report made public with approval from Friends of the Arts Community Board (Fall 2000) • Campaign consultant search initiated (Fall 2000) • Case for Arts Center is completed. Materials are produced in support of the campaign (Winter 2000) • Funding models and prospects will be identified and cultivated (Winter 2000) • Tie in with Park Commons development (ongoing) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year (ongoing) Goal 4: Create private/public initiatives to integrate visual arts and design elements in new development and redevelopment projects throughout the city. Recommended action steps: 60 • Create a program with criteria and guidelines, working towards identifying clear outcomes over the next three years (Fall 1999) • Identify funding criteria and funding equations (Fall 1999) • Secure council approval of funding equation (Winter 1999) • Establish a media/communications plan in support of the goals of this program (ongoing) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year (ongoing) Supporting Strategies of the Goals of the Strategic Plan for Arts in St. Louis Park Supporting Strategy 1: Secure a professional arts administrator/consultant to assist in the implementation of the strategic plan and to coordinate arts programming between the private and public schools, community education, parks & recreation, Friends of the Arts programming. Also responsible for providing staff support for the FOA’s campaign for a new proposed Center for the Arts and for the information and resource center. Recommended action steps: • Research other art coordinator positions in neighboring communities (Summer 1999) • Create and refine a job description with the input and approval of the schools, community education, parks & recreation, and Friends of the Arts (Fall 1999) • Hire new Arts Administrator (Winter 1999) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year. (ongoing) Supporting Strategy 2: Re-organize Friends of the Arts as an integrated arts consortium non-profit agency to better represent the private and public schools, community education, parks and recreation, and the community-at-large. Recommended action steps: • Conclude initial research on applicable models that could be used in St. Louis Park (Winter 1999) • Approve organizational outline and create job descriptions with clear outcomes for: • Friends of the Arts Community board of directors(Winter 1999) • Friends of the Arts Task Force chairs (Spring 2000) • Friends of the Arts Task Force members (Spring 2000) 61 • Publicize task force work plan and recruit chairs and members from the community at large (Spring 2000) • Identify liaison members for the Community board of directors from the schools, community education and the parks and recreation departments, and the community-at-large (Spring 2000) • Build a strong and diverse membership base from identified target populations for providing individual volunteer and financial support (ongoing) Supporting Strategy 3: Implement public and private funding systems to support art programming, artists, arts organizations, and students of art in St. Louis Park, in order to: • pay the salary of the new Arts Administrator to provide the coordination of programming between the city (Friends of the Arts), the schools, community education, and parks & recreation (January 2000) • Grant the allocation of city monies to fund the feasibility study for the design and construction of the Center for the Arts (Spring 2000) • provide unrestricted and restricted grant funds to support Friends of the Arts programming for the community at large (2000) • set aside 1% of the city's capital redevelopment and new development budget for integrated art support formula: • public art (2001) • capital expenditures (2001) • discretionary grants (2002) • scholarships (2002) • create a city arts endowment (2002) Recommended action steps: • Conclude initial research into city funding models for arts plan implementation (Spring 2000) • Explore other funding partnerships (Winter 2000) • Create a fund or establish a funding equation for the city to implement to support arts programming and space over the next three years (Spring 2000) • Ensure equitable and balanced distribution of public financial resources through the creation of a plan with criteria and guidelines (Summer 2000) • Make the best use of these funds through emphasizing public/private partnerships (ongoing) • Establish a process for memorials and legacy gifts (Fall 2000) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year. (ongoing) Supporting Strategy 4: Promote, through electronic and print media, that arts and culture are a key component of the city's offerings 62 Recommended action steps: • Integrate culture and the arts into the city's overall strategy for the planning and running of the city through FOA representation on boards and commissions involved with planning and design (Spring 2000) • Enhance the city's physical image by integrating cultural identity and urban design through a comprehensive community plan for new development and redevelopment initiatives (Spring 2000) • Create the case for the support of a public relations plan with annual media strategies (Summer 2000) • Promote St. Louis Park as an arts and artists city through promotion of the local arts community and programming with creative and consistent imaging (Fall 2000) • Evaluate success and level of support at the conclusion of each fiscal year. (ongoing) Implementation The goals and objectives of the Vision for the Arts will be implemented through: • The designation of Friends of the Arts to oversee the coordination and implementation of elements of the Vision for the Arts • Existing and new school district, community education, parks & recreation, and community art programs • Partnerships with nonprofit organizations and businesses The implementation program will be evaluated against plan goals. Review of the plan will provide opportunities to report back to the public on progress in implementing the plan and to incorporate new ideas and changes in priorities. Evaluation, monitoring and progress reports for community programs will be the joint responsibility of the City and Friends of the Arts, which will evaluate the progress of other plan objectives as they are implemented. City of St. Louis Park responsibilities The City's role is to assure fairness and equity in the distribution of the City's art resources. The City will have the following responsibilities: • Designate Friends of the Arts to implement the Vision for the Arts • Support local art resources and public access to art-related programming through the management of the following City-owned facilities: • Rec Center • City Hall • Park Commons Amphitheater • Park Commons • Wolfe Park • Oak Hill Park 63 • Civic space and buildings • Develop and program future facilities through a new Capital Improvements Campaign for the Arts and through the support of appropriate city departments • Provide funding for the arts through: • paying the salary of the new Arts Administrator to provide the coordination of programming between the city (Friends of the Arts), the schools, community education, and parks & recreation • providing unrestricted and restricted grants to support Friends of the Arts programming for the community at large • Granting the allocation of city monies to fund the feasibility study for the building of the Center for the Arts • setting aside 1% of its capital redevelopment and new development budget for public art • Schedule and route public transportation to improve access to art activities and programs • Utilize Cable Access for publicizing events • Administer service contracts, as needed, with private entities for implementing the Vision for the Arts • Support quality urban design through land use, planning and development approvals and other City efforts • Ensure accessibility of public art facilities to persons with disabilities through compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act • Evaluate Plan implementation related to the above items Friends of the Arts Responsibilities The Vision for the Arts Plan recommends that the current Friends of the Arts be designated as the lead entity (501 © 3) for the coordination of arts programming in St. Louis Park. The City will fund FOTA to develop and manage programs recommended in the Vision for the Arts. An agreement between the City and FOTA for specific services will be developed and signed by both parties. Friends of the Arts will have the following responsibilities: • Carry out agreed upon services according to the priorities for implementation contained in the Vision for the Arts • Be accountable to the City for record keeping, periodic progress reports and meeting the schedules for programs and service in the agreement • Assist in coordinating and balancing arts programming in city-owned, school district, community education and parks & recreation facilities between established organizations and minority or emerging groups • Staff advisory committees and task forces • Oversee the hiring and supervision of the new Arts Administrator/staff liaison • Coordinate the efforts of the city and private arts-related organizations • Evaluate and monitor progress toward meeting the Vision for the Arts objectives. Friends of the Arts will organize annual public meetings to report on progress and 64 invite ideas from the community regarding new project and Vision for the Arts priorities Organizational Chart for Supporting the Vision for Arts in St. Louis Park Public Schools Private Schools Corporate Community Friends of the Arts Consortium • Community Board of Directors (4 FOA, 2 Comm. Ed.; 2 Private Schools; 2 Public Schools; 2 Parks & Rec.; 2 Corporate; 2 City officials) Community Education City Officials/ City Council Parks & Recreation Arts Administrator/Consultant Arts Programming Community Arts Center for Visual Arts & Resource Service the Arts & City Design Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Task Force Chair Task Force Chair Task Force Chair Task Force Chair Committees Committees Committees Committees Volunteers Volunteers Volunteers Volunteers 65 Note: Other committees, advisory groups and task forces could be created to support financial, administrative, public relations and marketing, and technology support functions in relation to the flow chart on the previous page. Implementation Strategies for the City Council to consider immediately: Action Steps for remainder of 1999 Cost Timeline • Direct the creation of the job description for art administrator/consultant with clear outcomes. Create work plan Volunteer & staff time July 1999 • Oversee search for art administrator/consultant candidates. Work with FOTA. Volunteer & staff time July 1999 • Hire individual (10 hours wk x 15 weeks @ $50 hr.) (Split between schools, comm. Ed., parks & recreation, and city (at 50%)) $7,500 August Sept Oct 1999 • Increase time of arts administrator (20 hours wk x 10 weeks @ $40 hr.) (same split) $8,000 Nov Dec 1999 • Provide full job and office support as needed $2,000 July-Dec 1999 • Create an arts education task force to study ways to strengthen arts offerings in the public schools, community education, Parks and Recreation departments and Friends of the Arts Volunteer & staff time & arts admin. Sept 1999 • Create a Community Arts information and Resource service plan with outcomes & budget Arts admin. Sept 1999 • Create a public citizen response mechanism that reiterates confirmation of previous community feedback and direction of the need for a new art center: $500 & arts admin. Time Oct 1999 • Complete the reorganization of Friends of the Arts Volunteer and advisory Oct 1999 • Identify and secure consultant to launch and conduct a feasibility study $10,000 Nov-Dec 1999 • Create a program for Visual Arts and Design with criteria and guidelines, establish clear outcomes , and Identify funding criteria and funding equations Arts Admin. Oct 1999 66 Action Steps for 2000 and 2001 Cost Timeline • Feasibility study for Art Center $50,000 - $100,000 2000- 2001 • Operationalize Community Arts information and Resource service $25,000 2000 • Put into place public relations campaign for promoting St. Louis Park as a cultural and artistic community $25,000 & pro-bono ad agency 2000 • Create an integrated funding plan for the arts that outlines careful funding equations with clear outcomes and performance indicators $? Depends on scope Implementation Strategies with leadership from an arts consultant and the re-organization of Friends of the Arts The strategies outlined in the Vision for the Arts will be carried out by 4 primary entities. A preliminary listing of projects, along with responsible groups and possible scheduling is contained in the tables below. Projects and scheduling will be further refined by the FOTA Community Board of Directors. Strategies Presently 2000 2001 2002 Friends of the Arts Current programs and services • Theater in the Park x x x x • Music in the Park x x x x • Arts in the Park x x x x • Wednesday music and arts in the park summer series x x x x New programs and services • Community Arts information and Resource service x x X • Integration of Visual arts and Design in redevelopment projects in the City x x x • Oversee studies and feasibility studies for the proposed Art Center x x x • Coordination with all neighboring community art centers and associations x x x Strategies Presently 2000 2001 2002 Public School Art Curriculum (K-12) Current programs and services ELEMENTARY-MUSIC 67 • K-3 general music instruction x x X X • 4-6 gen. Music instruction x x X X • creative arts opportunities X x X X • choir during the school day X x x X • orchestra instruction at year 4 X x x X • band instruction at year 5 X x x X • group lessons and large ensemble work X x x X JUNIOR HIGH-MUSIC • 7-8, participation required in either band, orchestra, choir, general music X x x X • 7-8 honors band, and band by audition X x x X SENIOR HIGH-MUSIC • Electives in music theory, jazz lab, concert band, mixed chorus, women's chorus, renaissance women, park singers, orchestra, chamber orchestra X x x X ELEMENTARY-ART • No art specialists in primary grades, classroom teachers responsible • Intermediate - art specialists grades 4-6 X x x X JUNIOR HIGH-ART • Art specialist X x x X SENIOR HIGH-ART • Electives in Art I, II, painting, drawing, sculpture, pottery, commercial art, drawing, illustration, photography X x x X THEATER • Theater arts, art of the cinema, drama club productions X x x X DANCE • No dance specialists, some offerings as part of music or phys. Ed. classes x x x X New programs and services • mime x x x • puppetry x x x • improvisation x x x • sequential learning in visual arts x x x • band and orchestra lessons as part of school day x x x • composition x x x • music theory x x x • music classes for non-performers x x X • music classes for performers x x x 68 • music appreciation and music history x x x • dedicated and improved space for theater x x x • strengthening theater in junior high x x x • satisfactory art space with minimal equipment x x x • art classes for youth at risk x x x • overall coordination between art programming between elementary, Jr. high and senior high x x x • cross disciplinary integration of language arts, visual/graphic arts, business, and photography x x x • Summer arts programs that follow the sports offering model x x x • Film making (not video) x x X Strategies Presently 2000 2001 2002 Community Education Current programs and services ADULT x x x X • Piano, singing, painting, rubber stamping x x x X • Other classes available depending on session, teacher availability and community interest x x x X YOUTH • Cartoon and face drawing x x x X • Ceramics x x x X • Recorder lessons x x x X • Card making x x x X • Youth choir x x x X • Piano lessons x x x X SUMMER SCHOOL • 16 Art of drama related classes x x x X • 5 Creative "craft" type classes x x x X • 9 Music or drama classes x x x X • 8 Art classes x x x X • BRAVO music appreciation program, grades 1-3 x x x X • Art appreciation/picture person, grades 1- 6 x x x X New programs and services CLASS OFFERINGS FOR ADULTS 69 • Jewelry making x x x • More painting and illustration x x x • Lapidary x x x • Photo lab x x x • Story telling x x x • Quilting x x x • pottery x x x • computer arts and graphics x x x • dance x x x • poetry writing classes x x x • short stories and memoirs writing classes x x x • choirs x x x • theater groups x x x INTERGENERATIONAL PROGRAMS • choirs and other music x x x • theater groups x x x • dance x x x • art shows x x x OTHER • Contact for artists and performers to go to the schools and work with students x x x • Facilitate art exchanges x xx Strategies Presently 2000 2001 2002 Parks & Recreation Current programs and services • Rec Center x x x x • Parktacular x x x x • Summer Arts Festival at Wolfe Park x x x New programs and services • Amphitheater x x Neighborhoods of St. Louis Park that were contacted for input in the design of the Vision for the Arts • Amhurst • Aquila 70 • Birchwood • Blackstone • Bronx Park • Brooklawns • Brookside • Browndale • Cedar Manor • Cobbelcrest • Creekside • Crestview • Elliot View • Elmwood • Fern Hill • Kilmer • Lake Forest • Lenox • Minikahda Oaks • Minikahda Vists • Oak Hill • Shelard Park • Sorensen • Texa Tonka • Westdale • Westwood Hills Targeted Stakeholders for Completion of the Survey and attendance of community focus groups • Lenox Community Center • Community Education • Public Schools • Spanish Immersion • Daycare centers • School Board • Private Schools • Community Centers • VIP Volunteer Program • Wayside Housing • Perspectives • Meadowbrook Housing Community • Private Social service organizations • Commissions and Coalitions 71 • Councils • Boards • Neighborhoods • Churches and synagogues • Ethnic organizations • Media St. Louis Park City Council • Jeff Jacobs, Mayor • Susan Sanger • Chris Nelson • Robert Young • Ron Latz • Jim Brimeyer St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts • Susan Schneck • Laurie Bramhall • Julie Geiger • Carole Humphrey • Logene Kobe • John McKone • Jan Mershon • Rick Person • Jim Phillips • Pat Ritchie • Cathy Reimer • Jim Rhodes • Kathy Wecker • Sue Wolfe Consultant Curt N. Peterson, CFRE Appendices Executive Summary of Arts Survey results: 72 • Generally speaking, respondents felt that the need for children's classes took precedence over classes for adults, practice space or performance space • Regarding art needs, visual arts was a higher priority than performing arts, with the lowest priority being music • A clear majority of respondents were not satisfied with the availability, quality and range of programming currently being offered in St. Louis Park And in order to improve what was offered, the top choices were: • An art center or some type of space • Providing a broader range of options and provide more availability • Providing better publicity and communication to the public • Initiatives that would increase respondents involvement would be: • More publicity • Lower or no cost • A broader range of classes and options When dreaming about arts in St. Louis Park, respondents addressed: • The need for an art center • Accessibility for all • A theater group • Choral music • Serious high quality art classes Participation studies indicated that respondents attended: • Theater elsewhere • Art exhibitions elsewhere • Classical recitals elsewhere • Oak Hill summer concerts here in St. Louis Park • Band concerts here in St. Louis Park • Band concerts and choral concerts elsewhere Respondents attended in greatest numbers: • Minneapolis Institute of Art • Children's Theater • State Theater • Minnesota Orchestra Features most requested in a proposed Art Center for St. Louis Park: • Theater and music performing space • Visual arts exhibition space • Vocal and instrumental classes and events • Dance classes • Painting, drawing, and art classes • Children's plays And the most important issues that respondents wanted to be considered: • Cost 73 • Range of activities that would involve adults and children • Good promotion • Ongoing and consistent funding • Availability • Uniqueness and addressing cultural diversity What art "needs" exist in St. Louis Park right now? Practice Performance Classes Classes Studio Space Exhibition Space for Adults for Children VISUAL ARTS • Painting 65 76 84 103 • Photography 56 70 84 78 • Sculpture 54 69 76 82 • Other 27 19 23 27 MUSIC • Instrumental 37 58 42 60 • Vocal 47 59 50 48 • Other 8 8 11 13 PERFORMING ARTS • Theater 63 92 67 88 • Dance 63 71 66 80 • Other 9 12 9 8 A registry of artists/organizations/resources: 68 Catalog/schedule of arts activities/events: 91 On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 is low and 5 is high), how would you rate the availability, quality, and range of current arts programming in St. Louis Park? 1 2 3 4 5 • Availability41(29%) 52(36%) 42(30%) 6(4%) (1.1%) (142) • Quality 26(20%) 27(21%) 40(31%) 25(20%) 10(8%) (128) • Range 33(25%) 54(41%) 35(26%) 10(7%) 1(1%) (133) What kinds of arts events have you or your family members attended or participated in 1998? VISUAL ARTS In St. Louis Park Elsewhere • Art/photo 42 121 74 • Painting 8 52 • Photography 6 25 • Sculpture 2 25 • Other visual arts 5 10 MUSIC • Band 80 92 • Classical recitals 26 105 • Choral concerts 38 92 • Other musical 6 20 PERFORMING ARTS • Theater 47 151 • Dance 6 70 • Other 3 11 FRIENDS OF THE ARTS EVENTS • Celebrate the Arts Spring Festival 46 • Theater in the Park 40 • Oak Hill Summer Concerts 94 Where do you go to attend or participate in arts activities or events? 1(never) 2(sometimes) 3(often) • Minnetonka Center for the Arts 91 36 2 • Edina Art Center 82 39 12 • Hopkins Center for the Arts 62 82 11 • MacPhail Center 91 31 7 • University of Minnesota 60 81 10 • Jewish Community Center 91 31 3 • Minneapolis Institute of Art 20 129 34 • Walker Art Center 11 48 6 • Children's Theater 33 110 16 • Southern Theater 98 19 1 • Orpheum Theater 38 94 10 • State Theater 43 101 11 • Jungle Theater 86 41 0 • Juene Lune Theater 82 39 1 • Mixed Blood Theater 76 53 0 • Guthrie Theater 16 49 8 • O'Shaughnessy 63 68 1 • Minnesota Orchestra 34 107 18 • St. Paul Chamber 71 50 12 • Other Mpls. Theater 47 66 11 • Other suburban theater 55 55 3 • Mpls dance events 61 67 8 75 • Suburban dance events 75 30 1 • Other 0 39 19 Partners, Collaborators, and Perceived Competitors for Friends of the Arts Partners • City of St. Louis Park • Top 5 corporations in St. Louis Park (Novartis, Health Systems, MN Rubber, JAPS/Olson, Citizens' Bank) • SLP School District Volunteer Program • Lenox Community Center • MRAC (funding only) • Cable/Community TV • Park Perspective • Sun Sailor • St. Louis Park Hennepin County Library • Westwood Hills Nature Center • Children First Collaborators • SLP school district and individual schools & community education • Wayside House • Perspectives • Meadowbrook Collaborative • Wooddale Lutheran Church • Parks and Recreation Department of St. Louis Park • Jewish Community Center • YES Kids • Rotary Club • Twin City West Perceived Competitors • Minnetonka Center for the Arts • Hopkins Area Arts Association • Chaska Arts Council • Edina Art Center • Bloomington Arts Center • The Rec Center • Sport programs • Parkacular Our goals: To make our perceived competitors collaborators; to make more of our collaborators partners. 76 77 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e Meeting of June 7, 1999 8e. Resolution approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan This resolution approves the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan. Background: The Emergency Preparedness Plan is a set of guidelines to be used in the event of an emergency. The purpose of this plan is to maximize the protection of life and property; ensure the continuity of government; sustain survivors; and repair essential facilities and utilities. Its intent is to assist key city officials and emergency organizations to carry out their responsibilities during emergency situations. Periodically we need to review and update our plan as part of an on going evaluation process. This provides us with an opportunity to clarify and refine the roles of Mayor and City Council and to affirm the administrative plan structure with the appointment of the City Manager as Emergency Preparedness Director. This formal evaluation is a sound practice on an operational basis and is a required step to continued receipt of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) state and local assistance funds. It should also be noted that minor changes to the Emergency Plan are made on an as needed basis. We have also re-written or revised the chapters in the document to reflect changes in organizational structure and personnel, on going refinement of the incident command process, continuous shift in plan emphasis to an “all hazards” emergency approach, and acknowledgement of updated response agreements between the City and other agencies such as the Red Cross. Recommendation: The plan has been revised to reflect changes in city personnel and positions, and to reaffirm the City Manager as the Emergency Director. The Council has been given a copy of the government officials handbook and has had the opportunity to discuss their roles in the plan with City and County Staff . Copies of the revised emergency plan are attached. Staff recommends the Council approve the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan. Attachments: Resolution Emergency Preparedness Plan Prepared by: Robert Gill, Fire Chief Bridgette Boche, Administrative Analyst Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 78 RESOLUTION NO.______ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE UPDATED CITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN WHEREAS, the existing possibility of the occurrence of disasters of unprecedented size and destruction resulting from fire, flood, tornado, blizzard, destructive winds or other natural causes, or from sabotage, hostile action, or from hazardous material mishaps of catastrophic measure; and in order to insure that preparations of the City of St. Louis Park will be adequate to deal with such disasters, it is hereby found and declared to be necessary: a) To maintain an emergency preparedness plan under the management of the Emergency Director, b) To provide for the rendering of mutual aid between the City and other political subdivisions of the County and State with respect to the carrying out of emergency preparedness functions, c) To comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter Twelve Section 12.25, which requires that each political subdivision of Minnesota shall establish a local organization for emergency management; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has adopted an emergency management plan to assist key city officials and emergency organizations to carry out their responsibilities during emergency situations; WHEREAS, the plan has been revised to reflect changes in city organizational structure, personnel, and current resources and procedures; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of St. Louis Park adopts a revised Emergency Preparedness Plan and affirms the authority of the Emergency Director to execute emergency procedures and operations as- necessary. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 7, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 79 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8f* Meeting of June 7, 1999 *8f. Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000 - 2002. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution authorizing the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between the City and the County concerning the Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000 - 2002. Background: Each year the City of St. Louis Park receives about $300,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant funds through Hennepin County according to a formula allocation. In order to act as a subrecipient of these funds, the City must enter into a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County. The Agreement basically identifies the roles and responsibilitiesof both parties relative to CDBG funding and an updated Agreement is executed biannually. Council is being asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between the City and the County concerning the Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000 - 2002. Two changes have been made to the Agreement by the County since the FY 1998 - 1999 contract. Neither of these changes will substantially impact the St. Louis Park CDBG program. They include: • an increase in the threshold for participation in the Consolidated Pool from $50,000 to $75,000 (St. Louis Park does not participate in the Consolidated Pool) • Section VI allows cities that reach metropolitan city entitlement status to opt of the Hennepin County program (St. Louis Park is well below the population threshold for metropolitan city entitlement status) The City Attorney has also reviewed the document. In addition, the agreement allows the City to apply for federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds available annually through a competitive application process administered by Hennepin County. The City has received funds for affordable homeownership activities in partnership with Habitat for Humanity and for assisted housing in Park Commons. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Joanna Brownstein, Housing Coordinator 80 Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 81 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2000 - 2002. WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County be terminated and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County be executed effective October 1, 1999, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 7, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: 82 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8g* Meeting of June 7, 1999 *8g. 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). (Note: This is a repeat of an April 19, 1999 request. Hennepin County has asked for a second agreement, with no substantive changes.) 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 (and April 19, 1999 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 83 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 June 7, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 84 Item # 9a* Date: May 17, 1999 To: St. Louis Park City Council From: St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Subject: 1998 Year End Report St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission accomplishments for 1998 include: • Created Brochure: St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission completed new brochure for distribution to St. Louis Park households. The HRC brochure reaffirms St. Louis Park’s continuing effort to address discrimination citywide. The brochure is being revised to include the new commission members and updated information. • Human Rights phone line is being monitored to assist the citizens in reporting bias hate crimes or perceived discrimination. Commission members responded to 8 phone calls and contacts during the year. All calls related to alleged discrimination by citizens. • Presented 1998 Annual Human Rights Award; Eileen Soderberg received an award presentation and plaque at the December City Council meeting. Eileen is a superb recipient with a full life of volunteering at Meadowbrook’s Community Center, working with the Mosaic children’s group and school counseling. This award was reinstituted and updated by the HRC, to recognize volunteers and citizens for outstanding work in St. Louis Park. • Created St. Louis Park Human Rights Hate/Bias Response Plan in cooperation with Police Chief John Luse. A full year was spent on writing a Hate/Bias Response Plan to meet the needs of the growing and diverse culture in St. Louis Park. The City Council reviewed and accepted the plan at the December Council meeting. Copies were forwarded to Mort Ryweck, League of Human Rights Response Plan coordinator for the State of Minnesota. • The commission welcomed Barbara Pulliam, St. Louis Park Schools Superintendent, at two meetings to discuss a school diversity plan as part of the new school strategic planning process. The commission offered assistance and feedback for the schools diversity planning process. Mia Phillips, State Coordinator of Human Resources, attended one of the meetings to offer information from her department’s perspective. • Commission requested and received latest information on statistics for St. Louis Park from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, regarding diversity information and from the St. Louis Park Police Department for Hate/Bias crimes. • Updated new member orientation packet for distribution to new commission members. • Participated in the MN League of Human Rights meeting in September, 1998. • Attended State Human Rights Day Conference in October 1998. 85 Four new members joined the commission in March 1999, to provide more expertise and assistance in helping to accomplish the remainder of the HRC Three Year Strategic Plan in 1999. Plans are underway to provide education to the citizens about their rights and what constitutes a human rights violation. Work will continue on continuing the phone line communication responses and future brochure changes. A commission member is working on the Human Rights Commission by-laws to update them and make them more meaningful. The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission members look forward to a productive year and hope new members will provide the impetus to create a better awareness of the commission as a whole. Greater focus on education and communication with the citizens will help fulfill some of our 1999 goals. Laurel Higgins, Chair St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission 86 Item # 9b* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of April 14, 1999 Ms. Velick moved approval of Minutes of April 14, 1999 and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor. 3. Public Hearings: None 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda - None B. Other New Business i. Review of Revised Phase One Master Plan for Park Commons by Greg Esterman, Avalon Bay Communities Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, presented a staff report. She noted that on February 24, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary plan for development of Park Commons Phase One area. The area extends east of Bally’s Fitness Center to Monterey Drive and north of Excelsior Boulevard to Wolfe Park. During its last review, the Planning Commission voiced several concerns which were conveyed to the developer. Ms. Jeremiah explained that she and Dave Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator, recently met with the consultants in Washington DC and visited some sites similar to this proposal. As a result of this visit and discussions with 87 the consultants, Staff is feeling more comfortable with the direction the consultants are going with the revised plans for Park Commons. • Widening the town green compared to the February plan (although the proposed width is still less than envisioned during the charrette); • Providing some active street level uses on Excelsior Boulevard; • Including a parkway road as a public edge to Wolfe Park and means of accommodating some parking and improving access; • Incorporating owner-occupied townhomes overlooking the park; • Including a larger, more consolidated office component that will provide shared parking for public events in the evenings and on weekends. Greg Esterman, Development Director from Avalon Bay Communities, Dennis Sutliff of ESG Architecture, and Bill Beard of the Beard Group were present. Greg Esterman, Development Director from Avalon Bay Communities presented an update on the Phase One Master Plan. Dennis Sutliff, ESG Architecture, explained how the plans have progressed to meet the original goals of the charrette. He stated that he would present an overview and then, through a discussion, get a validation from the Planning Commission that this is in fact a direction that he should proceed and then go on to resolve remaining issues. The plan shows ground level retail with residential spaces above . He explained that the overriding concept is to create a new focus for this side of St. Louis Park. Ths is done in several ways. One idea that goes back to the charrette is to create a town green that acts as a focus, but is also a major visual and pedestrian connection between Excelsior Boulevard, and the hustle bustle nature of Excelsior Boulevard, to Wolfe Park. We are presenting an edge to the community with continuous active uses all along Excelsior Boulevard. It is a hope at some time in the future that we could start to impact what happens on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard as well. For example, at the end of the town green there is the gas station which has recently been improved, but it is kind of a shame that this is the visual terminus on the other end wherein there is the park and amphitheater at the north end. Some of the initial market studies that were done by Zimmerman had suggested that if this was truly developed as an interactive retail space, that the 100% corners may in fact not be on Excelsior Boulevard, but they would be internal because of the kind of activity that could be generated by the green, traffic and the pedestrian environment there. He said what they have done is acknowledge that in this plan suggesting that there would be four significant entertainment kinds of restaurants that would occur on that green and absolutely concur that those could be the 100% corners. What we have done to augment that is create a secondary pedestrian orientated shopping street within line retail anchored somewhat at the middle by those restaurant and more entertainment venues and anchored at the ends by larger retailers which are 88 likely to be an entertainment retail or “big single purpose retailer” such as a book store. Chair Morris stated that he guesses it goes back to the 1950’s and 1960’s when many people saw the beginning of strip malls that eventually flourished. As part of their development they discovered that people don’t want to walk down long streets in the winter time to get from point A to point B and started putting up canopies and eventually the Knollwoods of the world evolved out of the small malls which is something we are envisioning here. He questions the viability of a narrow arcade type of retail, business, and restaurant that is essentially an open air mall since we have evolved to enclosed malls. Mr. Sutliff indicated that was a key question when people discuss new urbanism and traditional neighborhood planning. Can we overcome the pattern that has developed since the 1950’s and the mentality of park it in front of the door and walk right in? We have to look at how that pattern arose and one reason was of course the convenience of what Chair Morris eludes to. I think the other reason that made that kind of development happen was cheap land value. Land was cheap. It was easy to build strip malls and surface park everything in front. You can’t afford to do that kind of development anymore. People would go into Knollwood before it was enclosed and they would park down by Powers and walk down to the other end and back again in the winter or summer. The length of this Park Commons proposal is probably not much longer or not even as long as that. We are attempting to break those 30-40 year ingrained patterns with the whole concept of new urbanism (traditional neighborhood planning). We have to make this every bit as convenient to not only the neighborhood user, but the occasional regional user. 50th and France is an example of where this has been successful here in the Twin Cities. I would argue that this would be even more of a pleasant pedestrian environment because the streets are less of thoroughfares in that they are captured at either end which is a natural traffic calming characteristic which does not exist at 50th and France or Linden Hills. Commissioner Timian asked if the underground parking would be at the captured corners. Mr. Sutliff stated that this particular plan contemplates placing all of the parking demand for all of the retail and potentially office in three locations relatively equally distributed so they are easily accessible, visible, and perceived by the public as being readily accessible. The second part of the parking issue is the residential parking and we would propose in this plan that each of these blocks and the residential that is above the retail would be self parked on one level below grade. The public parking is at grade and above on the interior of the blocks and the residential parking is below grade, private and secure and accessible only by security card or some other measure. 89 Commissioner Timian asked where one would exit on to Excelsior Boulevard. Mr. Sutliff stated that the public primarily enters and exits off of Natchez and Princeton into the ramp. Some of the retailers will tell you that they want traffic to drive store fronts and others will say no because the regular user is going to know where the store is and we want a pedestrian environment. Narrow streets with parallel parking on the internal streets will be included in the plan. because we want to encourage some car activity, but at a slow speed for two reasons. One, it is activity and secondly for the quick stop shop convenience that is very appropriate. Mr. Sutliff showed some photographs of what the narrow shopping street may look like versus what the wider kind of broader spaces of the green may look like. We are still contemplating a couple of things with respect to the parking distribution. One is, rather than concentrating that overburden of parking in three locations, we are contemplating the possiblity of concentrating it in two locations or maybe even in one location underground. The bottom line is going to be cost. Mr. Sutliff said the other aspect of the parking is the need to create some overburden of parking for evening and weekend users of the public park and some of the public amenities to the north can have access to parking that is not filled by retail and restaurant. There will be an office component which is a desirable part of the market study in the first phase. That office component is a daytime Monday through Friday demand. The parking would be 95% open evenings and weekends when there is the biggest retail and entertainment kind of demand. We have not decided amongst the group of planners, developers and market types where that office is best located and is one issues that needs to be resolved. One idea is to put an office building at Monterey and Excelsior Boulevard, where it can be a single use, economically sufficient building with good identity and ideal for some medical offices. The problem with that, in spite of its visibility, is that it and its convenient parking is farther removed from the concentration of public activity. Another option would be over the top of one or more of the retail buildings in the Northwest quadrant and in an earlier plan we were looking at this area north of 38th/39th Street as the most appropriate because this is the biggest block and therefore the parking could be the most efficient with the longest runs and the widest base. We have chewed into that a bit by reintroducing the park edge road, which was not a feature of some of the earlier plans. Those are the levels of things that are still in flux. We know that the parking is going to be there for office, we know that the office is going to be there, but we haven’t decided quite where yet. The overall concept of one full level of underground private secured parking is still an option. The public parking could then be concentrated in 1 to 3 locations, hopefully in the most ideally centrally located area. Chair Morris asked what are we looking at for services in terms of delivery of goods and garbage. What are the traffic patterns that would service all of these 90 uses because it is going to be a lot of square footage needing a lot of product in and out? How would that be envisioned as a delivery system? Mr. Sutliff indicated that this would vary from block to block and he had some ideas about how that is going to work and frankly there is some detail that needs to be worked out as yet. As an example, he pointed out the alleys that are non- public that would service the back sides of the four primary retail, restaurant locations which have the highest demand for delivery and garbage. The delivery goods could be brought on hand trucks, dollies down the service corridor into a back door of the retail, much like it is in every suburban mall as we talked about earlier. The major anchors have similar alleys along the back. Depending on how some of these live work units on Excelsior Boulevard lay out, there may be an opportunity to get some head in parking that is private to those units right behind their back door. This is a slightly different scheme that illustrates a ground floor that has a service drive that comes in and loops back out again. Commissioner Timian asked if these alleys would be gated. Mr. Sutliff stated they could be depending on whether there is any residential access through there or not. Some of the schemes showed access to the residential garages that are underneath those alleys and some did not. Mr. Esterman stated that it would be unlikely that they would be gated because you probably have some flow through for parking and various access points to enter parking. Mr. Esterman stated that one of the most interesting aspects of the level of work we get into is to focus our energy on how this plan is going to work. Commissioner Timian asked about Fire and Police movement throughout plan. Ms. Jeremiah stated that part of the interest in reintroducing the parkway road is to allow fire access along that side particularly with the residential component overlooking the park. The Fire Department did have some concerns with the offset of 38th and 39th Street and the narrow turn there. It is likely that those center pieces as shown in the circles would actually have hard surfaced drive over curbs with no planting areas so that in an emergency, a larger fire truck could actually drive over them. The Fire Department is also looking at some innovative concepts for providing a fire hydrant service and adequate sprinkling capacity to this area to hopefully eliminate the need to get large trucks in there. These are all considerations that are being looked at in quite a bit of detail. Mr. Esterman commented that the dynamic of the traffic flow pattern plan is that the green is a central circulation area and you can move around there coming off Excelsior from the north. There are a couple outer rings built into the plan. With 91 the reintroduction of the park edge road and the east west roads on the side, it almost creates a whole second circle of access routes. If this becomes a reality it allows for a lot of different access points in and out. Mr. Sutliff noted that the roadway system would allow another benefit and that is, you could literally close the green to traffic on event days and create a pedestrian environment with kiosks. Commissioner Gothberg commented that this plan is a significant improvement from what we saw the last time. He asked what consideration has been given to bicycle lanes and whether you are going to have four way stops at every corner to facilitate pedestrian crossings. Mr. Sutliff stated that exclusive bicycle lanes have not been addressed at this point, however thinks that in terms of through bicycle traffic, we need to discuss that in some detail as to how it applies to Excelsior Boulevard and the improvements that are going on there. We are looking at it in the interior street roadway widths that are on the narrower side as opposed to the wider side to entice a calming, pull out bays for parallel parking and leaving the widest sidewalks as possible. In years gone by, one could say the bicyclists would use the sidewalks and there has been a movement to try to separate that traffic because of a few unfortunate injuries that have taken place. We think that in a slow speed vehicular environment like this that bicycles can pretty easily be with the cars as opposed to be with the pedestrians. Commissioner Velick indicated that the flow of this plan is so much more likable than before and she is really pleased. She asked Mr. Sutliff if he could discuss if there would be possibility for some kind of overhang over the walkways to protect the pedestrians from rain and snow. She said there is a place in Florida called the Mizner Park that has them. Ms. Velick said she avoids shopping areas like 50th and France during inclement weather. Mr. Sutliff said that some of his photos were from Mizner Park. He said that Mr. Esterman and Mr. Harmening have visited Mizner Park and are two of the players having input into creation of the plans. If you look at the preliminary sketches, you can see canopies and awnings that are a part of the retail environment. Commissioner Garelick applauds the changes that have been made. It is a nice sense of community which I didn’t pick up on the other plan. Is the housing going to be rental or owner occupied? Mr. Sutliff said that the previous version did not include any owner or for sale component. We have added owner occupied in, but the bulk of the housing is rental. 92 Mr. Esterman noted that Knollwood and similar malls didn’t have 500 homes or 50,000 to 80,000 square feet of office on top ot it. The type of housing that is generally on top of retail is almost exclusively rental. Most homeowners view the parking in this situation as inadequate and do not like the noise, restaurant odors, and a less than glamour views in some of the areas. Commissioner Garelick asked what rental rates were being considered. Mr. Esterman stated that what we are actually trying to achieve is a range of options, both in the for sale and rental. Generally the type of person who is going to want to be in a district like this is a discretionary renter or renter by choice. They love the excitement of an area like this. In this environment you have some of the activity that is a plus, some of the activity that you need to be cautious about, and some of the relationships to the parking, but they love to be in the middle of the excitement. There is a large percentage that could be homeowners. They are probably on the upper end of the income brackets and have owned before. We are trying to incorporate the livable communities effort and affordable or income assisted component. We don’t know the size of that yet, but will lock this down in the next phase of the project, but it is a valuable point and introduces an opportunity for another sector of the population. In terms of the home ownership opportunities, we have two park edge developments. One of them we have designated as for sale units which will be somewhat of an island where they don’t feel that they have to conflict with shared parking between retail and office, they will have their parking and area to keep clean and landscaped. Commissioner Garelick said he has not seen this concept in his travels. Is there anything like it in the midwest? Mr. Esterman stated that 50th and France, Uptown, Highland Park, and Hopkins are similar areas. Ms. Jeremiah noted that Laurel Village in Minneapolis also is a good example that has the apartments that are very viable over the retail. Mr. Esterman stated that there are other examples throughout the midwest common in Chicago. This is a unique opportunity. What you see is a lot of this type of development in Chicago because of a 100 year old rail system. It creates a nucleus or town center like this. Minneapolis didn’t have the rail opportunity. In Kansas City you have a country club plaza just internationally recognized that was developed like this. In Minneapolis it is not that common because the office developers were coming out of the 60’s and 70’s and were auto oriented. They just wanted a 20 acre piece of ground out in the cornfields to do their thing. They didn’t want to mix uses, too complicated, takes time and people would not accept. Now people are very focused coming back in from the suburbs and coming to the St. Louis Park’s of the world and saying this is a real gem. Even then, it is not 93 frequent that you have 10 or 20 acres with the amenities of wonderful single family housing right next to it, a wonderful park, on a significant route that lets you achieve the mass transit opportunities with several employment opportunities, particularly Park Nicollet. All of these amenities are within walking distance and that is why you don’t see five or ten going on in the Twin Cities. We feel very confident that this is what the market analysis supports and there is a real desire for this. He said he envisions that when this is built, St. Louis Park will be one of five or ten places you list as just really special. Ms. Jeremiah stated that this is the reason this is a demonstration project. There are not a lot of them in this area and the State of Minnesota is very interested in seeing this happen, hence the $1.8 million grant. Commissioner Garelick likes the concept. I don’t know if the future of St. Louis Park is building a lot of town houses. I’d rather see quality rather than quantity and this seems to answer that question. Chair Morris commented on the unknown of the parking garages. He suggested that the dispersed parking is the better of the options in that it offers you an opportunity to park in one of the ramps closer to the activity that you want to go to rather than going to a central place and having to disperse out and maybe be on the fringe. It disperses traffic and allows it not to be on a major thoroughfare where you are coming in and out of the major parking ramp. The spotting of the parking garages around the commons is more viable both for flexibility of where you want to park and the dispersing of the traffic. Chair Morris stated he hoped that we would work to encourage the use of both the Wolfe Park bicycle trail system and the northern parkway as being the bike pathways and discourage the use of the central Park Commons area the mall area for bicycles. We could use the same concept that we are using for automobiles that brings the bicycles to the area, have bicycle racks and parking stalls on the fringes and encourage people to park their bicycles and use the pedestrian areas. This way you don’t get the conflict that has been seen in a lot areas like the Nicollet Mall where you have the bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle conflict. Regarding the fact that Minnesota is six months of winter and five months of thaw, Chair Morris suggested the concept of a few tunnels to connect certain high occupancy areas or a limited use of skyways to bridge from one point to another. I don’t want to see everything connected, but I’m thinking if you can park in one parking garage and by tunnel get to the street to a complex on the other side, the feasibility of enclosed travel should be looked at. Ms. Jeremiah stated that one of the keys is not keeping people up at the skyway level, perhaps you make that connection and then you come back down to the street level or through the parking garage. 94 Chair Morris stated that it would have to be specific to whatever use is being envisioned, definitely not through the green space, but perhaps one tunnel to go from the parking ramp on the north side to the parking ramp on the south side. This is just a thought concept. Commissioner Velick said she thinks this is important, but we have to think differently than we have ever thought before. The only reason why I can say this is that I’ve been to places that I’ve shopped and you want people on the street, people mingling and you don’t want them up in skyways or down in tunnels. She asked if there was a speaker to discuss the economic aspects of these gathering places. Bill Beard of the Beard Group in Hopkins said that Mr. Esterman has had the Beard Group focus on retail as it relates to the entertainment components of the plan. He said he thinks the comments as they relate to dispersing the parking is right on track in that it becomes one of those things that people will start to get oriented to Park Commons. They will always park in one spot that is close to their favorite shop. As it relates to how we overcome the winter snow fall, there is going to have to be a special servcie district implemented that deals with issues such as snow removal. People in Minnesota do dress with heavy coats so they are prepared for cold weather. If we are disciplined about the snow removal and even heat those areas where we make that close transition from parking to retail the area will be pedestrian friendly. Mr. Beard said when you think of the investment that everyone is going to put into this project, we need to do the basics really well and overcome a lot of the perceived obstacles. We need to get the parking in these different pods close to where there is a quick down and out so people will feel comfortable with the area. This relates back to the strategy of what we are trying to achieve here from the retail component of it. He said he is really excited about this plan. This plan has been developed with no specific retailer in mind with the idea that what we are trying to create is a great retail environment within a great living environment. He thinks Avalon Bay recognizes that this, first and foremost, needs to be a great living environment. The retail, while it is very defining, is a complimentary element to the uses in the plan. A big box retailer is not going to want this because they want surface parking. The kind of retailers that we have been thinking and dreaming about are those kind that would be specialty like home improvement. One of the things that has been nurtured in this part of Excelsior Boulevard is that you have home interior businesses there and this would be a great reinforcement for this activity. I would like to see more of an entertainment orientated retailer where they are finding themselves as a media place where the average shopping time is 3 hours. Mr. Beard said this plan really sets up well from a hospitality standpoint. If I could pick an ideal tenant mix, I would like to see two national casual dining 95 restaurants, one very local upscale independent and one local medium scale geared toward families. People aren’t going to want to go home to get dressed up or stay dressed up; they want to get into some casual clothes and come on out. At the same time we want to have an upscale experience too. He said he would like to have the restaurants oriented more on the green, with the upscale on the north end because they have fewer customers, higher check average and less traffic demand would occur on the residential edge on the north. This works well on Lake Street in Wayzata where you see retail, office and housing all coming together. This is starting to be where retailers want to be to try to find these types of environments. Ten years ago you wouldn’t find The Gap outside a regional mall. Banana Republic is going into 50th and France which is an ideal tenant that you wouldn’t think of locating outside a mall, but they are starting to look for these environments. People are not using the regional malls in the same way, so many of those tenants are realizing they need to step out and look for those special retail situations. They are not looking to be in a big box retail strip center where you need to use your car to shop. This center is the exact opposite of the two developments in Woodbury where you need to use your car to shop them. We want it to be convenient and we want to encourage people to use the pedestrian activity in the plan. Commissioner Gothberg stated he doesn’t want tunnels and skyways. They are not necessary if you look at the layout, particularly with dispersed parking. If you go out to one of the big malls, typically you end up parking as far away from the building as you would park away from any of the stores here. Chair Morris stated that what Mr. Beard pointed out is a good option. Both areas at 50th and France and Hennepin and Lake use Special Service Districts to remove snow from the curb to create that ambiance of walking without the slush and that is feasible here. Chair Morris asked if Mr. Beard envisions established businesses in St. Louis Park gravitating towards this area or are we looking at new stores that may be competitive and put other retailers out of business. We had that with our Cub Food and our Almsted’s. We have our Texa Tonka malls. We are always looking at something new and something better, but someone is paying the price somewhere in the City. Mr. Beard said that you just can’t deny that when you create this retail environment there is probably someone, somewhere that is going to lose some business to this. Some of what we have tried to do is to develop this to deal with the convenience aspect which has been mostly served by the local people. He said he hopes there would be people who would see this as a good opportunity. You want to have a balance within the cost of space that is available to a retailer. One of the reasons that people liked shops like the Dilly Lilly and Pine Store is because rent is reasonably priced. Park Commons will be undoubtedly at the 96 higher end of the rent per square foot scale and we will be higher than what most of the competitive market within the local area. (i.e. Frauenshuh) Ms. Jeremiah stated that this is an aspect that the Economic Development Coordinator is also working closely on. To the extent that there is an interest in some of the local businesses being a part of this development, but the rent increase is just too much to envision right off the bat as being able to maintain there success, we may be looking at some rent breaks for the first year and half or two years while they get a good sense of whether they can generate enough additional business in this environment to come up to speed with these higher rents. The City wants to try to accommodate this need and it may be that the commercial developers will become comfortable with this kind of scenario and be willing to take on some of these smaller local businesses. They provide a really good energy and a unique experience that takes away that “anywhere in the USA” kind of environment. I have heard of a local bagel company in Bethesda, MD in an environment similar to this where Bruegger’s came in and tried to beat them out and the local company won. Mr. Beard stated it is important to have a mix of local and other retailers to be a special place. He stated that Richard Heape’s had explained that “there is a there in creating a special place”. If it is just the same old cast of characters that you see anywhere it is not as much fun. Chair Morris asked if the parking garages were going to be municipal, private, or free. Ms. Jeremiah stated that it is anticipated that there would not be any charge for the parking in this development, but the economics for making this happen are just underway. To the extent that there would be shared public parking, the City feels that we will likely be a very strong partner in the development and possibly ownership of the ramps. We don’t want to be owning a lot of property in this area and would rather do it through agreements where it remains open to the public rather than being long term owners. Chair Morris asked if Excelsior Boulevard would be the transit corridor for the area or are we looking at maybe a bus route looping through the Park Commons area. Ms. Jeremiah stated there is a possibility that the local transit circulator would circulate through the green and perhaps onto the parkway road a little bit, but the connections would all take place on Excelsior Boulevard. There hasn’t been any indication that the transit circulation would use 38th or 39th Street. The transit doesn’t really show on this plan, but we have been given comments from our transit study consultants with regard to how that would best work. The basic concept is that the metro transit line would actually stop on the green and the local 97 transit circulator would stop on the block just east of the green, but they would both then be controlled by the lighted intersection. People could walk across that controlled intersection to get from one side to the other. Likely, the local transit circulator would be sitting there for longer periods of time than the metro bus. Transit plans have to be worked into the development plan, but, in concept, the developer seemed agreeable to them. There are a lot of different ways to accommodate those kinds of stops with the canopies over the buildings as well and a shelter in the town green if that is deemed desirable. Commissioner Timian asked about the concept of the area south of Excelsior Boulevard. Mr. Sutliff stated that his comment was that it would be nice to include some planning in that area as the pressure to develop or redevelop increases. Although outside of this project area, it is something that is going to be influenced by this project. Commissioner Timian asked about plans for the Mann theater property. Ms. Jeremiah reviewed the aerial photo and explained the attempt to get a stronger east/west street connection on 39th through the Park Nicollet campus and to the theater area. Long term Park Nicollet plans do include redevelopment of the theater property, but this is not something that the City is trying to speed up or facilitate at this point. Mr. Esterman stated that this plan is meant to be a catalyst, but it is not an island. As you look at what is going on around this plan, it creates a very consistent look and a quality that everything benefits from. Commissioner Timian asked if it is possible to put aside some of the affordable housing for some of the people that are working in these retail spaces and restaurants. Ms. Jeremiah said she believes there would be a high demand for those units by the local employees, but she is not sure if we can actually designate those for the employees, but that is something we can certainly look into. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that at the June 7th meeting the Planning Commission will be reviewing amendments to the MX District. She said we have talked about some of those changes in the past to accommodate this type of development. Once the master plan is refined in a manner that we are all comfortable with, it will actually come back before you as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We would like to adopt this into the Redevelopment Chapter of our Comprehensive Plan as a means of guiding the development in this area. We would also be asking the Commission to make the associated land use map changes. Where you 98 see the mixed use buildings, we would ask you to adopt a Commercial Mixed Use designation and where you see dedicated residential development, you would have a Residential designation. The next step would be to start the rezoning process. Some of the properties in this area already have a high density residential zoning, others have a strictly commercial zoning which isn’t really conducive to the type of mixed use that we are anticipating. We would be asking you to rezone those areas. Prior to coming back to the Commission for a formal public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, we will be going back out to the neighborhood and condominiums in a broad open house format so that the public will see this in a informal manner before they come before you. Commissioner Gothberg suggested that the Planning Commission give a unanimous vote of confidence for the direction that Avalon Bay Communities is going. Chair Morris stated that a motion for any recommendation is not required, however the general consensus of the Planning Commission is unanimous that the presentations and improvements made are welcomed by the Commission. ii. Park Commons West Study Update Ms. Jeremiah referred to an aerial photo of the Park Commons area with integration of a new proposed roadway design showing the north/south and east/west connections. The Park Commons West Task Force reviewed this revised plan at their last meeting and has been discussing alternatives for providing additional roadway access throughout the western half of the Park Commons area. Study consultants (SRF) prepared the new design considering the best ways to accommodate everybody’s comments on traffic flows from redevelopment in this area. The proposed main north/south route has been somewhat realigned from the charrette concept to maintain the existing Quentin alignment at Excelsior Boulevard. Traveling east bound on Excelsior Boulevard, you would have a double left turn lane to get you to the north on to the new route. This double left opportunity would help gear traffic to the north and the intersection would be designed in such a manner to make it less desirable to travel to the south unless you live in the area and have a need to visit the neighborhood. To the north side is a realignment of Quentin. Currently, Quentin on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard intersects 39th Street at the Wolfe Lake Condominiums and there has been some concern from those folks about people using their parking lots and also concerns about traffic on several sides of their building. It is also more desirable from a traffic perspective to have a more gradual curve in that roadway rather than come to a hard 90 degree turn to proceed north again. This would require redevelopment of one of Park Nicollet’s buildings where they have their administrative offices, but again that is part of their own plans for the long term improvement. Then the roadway would continue on between Wolfe Lake condominiums and Park Nicollet where there is currently a driveway up to the 99 parking lot and then it would take a hard 90 degree turn to the west and another hard 90 degree turn to the north. Although it would slow traffic down and in some ways may be deemed undesirable, it would be a traffic calming device. More importantly, it would preserve a nice redevelopment parcel where the parking lot and Wayside House are located so you get a nice rectangular redevelopment parcel rather than splitting that property. However, it eliminates the proposed development on the back side of Byerly’s. There was some questions as to whether that would be desirable and how much of this retail environment can be really spread throughout this Park Commons area. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the nice rectangular piece that was reguided to civic mixed use is proposed to be ground level civic uses that would have direct access to the park. The upper stories could be medical office or housing depending on how much growth space Health Systems needs or whether Park Shore Place perhaps could accommodate some of that space for their residential needs as well. As the road proceeds north by Target it would shift somewhat to the west onto the Target parking lot for a short distance. That is a very minor realignment and doesn’t seem to be of any great concern to Target. What we will see is a nice 90 degree intersection with Park Center Boulevard so that you could actually get a controlled intersection there, either with a 3-way stop or a signalized intersection so you could have safe crossing for pedestrians from Park Shore Place and the park to Byerly’s and Target. If you frequent that area now, you know that it is very hazardous situation with an uncontrolled pedestrian intersection kind of mid block going over to Target. Ms. Jeremiah explained that from an east/west perspective there has always been an interest in continuing 39th Street west to provide a more cohesive east/west connection through the Park Nicollet development. The charrette concept plan actually dipped it to the south of the 3900 building. The issue with that is that Park Nicollet had an interest in building a mirror building to the 3900 building and had received preliminary approval on that. The other issue is over by Citizen’s Bank where it split those redevelopment parcels. As a result, we had SRF do an analysis of whether they could actually get 39th Street between the parking ramp and the 3900 building. The result is that you can get a narrow two way roadway through there. It wouldn’t have an opportunity for parking on either side of it in that exact location, but with the entrances into the parking ramp, etc, it doesn’t seem that parking is necessary. You also could not have tall trucks going through there because you do have a pedestrian skyway so it would just be automobiles and smaller vans (12 feet clearance). Park Nicollet does have some concerns with how that would operate and maintain their type of campus feel and good safe pedestrian environment. Staff will meet with Park Nicollet. The circles on the plan signify a signalized or some kind of controlled intersection. The thought is to stop traffic at these locations to make sure pedestrians could cross easily to the front doors of the building. Pedestrians also can use the skyway from the parking ramp. We think we can work through the remaining concerns. More of a long term east/west connection would occur north of AAA and south of 100 Byerly’s. There is a slope in that area and the current configuration would require a lot of retaining at great expense. However it is deemed a desirable connection, particularly if there is additional redevelopment on the far west side. This is looked at as more of a futuristic alignment and probably wouldn’t be in place for some years. It might not happen until the AAA property is redeveloped. Health Systems does have an interest in trying to acquire that property and redevelop it, but AAA is not interested at this point. Commissioner Timian asked if Citizens Bank is going to be redeveloped and what the time frame might be. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that the City is not involved with trying to initiate any redevelopment on the Citizens Bank property, however that property is owned by Health Systems and Citizens Bank has a lease. It is the City’s understanding the bank is feeling some pressure from Health Systems to redevelop in a shorter time frame than they would like, so we may be looking at relocation opportunities for Citizens Bank. Commissioner Timian asked how much of the property around Park Nicollet does Health Systems own. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that Park Nicollet owns the parking lot just south of Wayside House; 3800, 3850, 3900 buildings and the surface parking lot to the west of 3900 building. The City owns the parking structure. It is not clear whether Park Nicollet owns the Mann Theater Development property or if Park Nicollet has an option on the property that they can exercise. In either case, they have a long term ownership interest in the entire site that contains Timber Lodge, Mann Theater, Caribou and McDonald’s. They also own the Citizen’s Bank parcel and adjacent property all the way over to Quentin. Chair Morris indicated that when Park Nicollet first came in for that new development, their campus concept was basically that the drive going in would be bounded on both sides by Park Nicollet offices, facilities and parking, including the Citizen’s Bank site as being one of their expansion opportunities. He stated that he looks at the street as bisecting their property and considers it a major disruption to another permanent tenant of the City being their campus. However, he said he realizes the street is reasonable in order to tie the Park Commons to the west. Prior to the Park Commons and Wolfe Park development, that was the Park Nicollet development concept. Commissioner Gothberg indicated that he liked the whole roadway plan. One of the things relative to the Park Nicollet campus idea is that he hates going onto Excelsior Boulevard from where he lives to go into Park Nicollet, so he usually takes Auto Club Drive, snakes back around and does a full circle through their main entrance pathway in order to get into their parking ramp. 101 Ms. Jeremiah stated that this is a good point that the consultants have made as well. Whether you really provide a connection that is more of a local road or whether people are trying to wind through parking lots, people are going to try to make that connection. As Park Nicollet adds a half a million square feet to their campus and as we add more development to the east, there is going to be more and more desire to make those connections. You can try to make it convenient and safe or you can let people cut through undesignated areas, which can be dangerous. Commissioner Velick stated that this roadway layout really pulls things together and she is pleased to see this and the potential is there to be a real community. She said she is excited about the new proposal. Ms. Jeremiah reviewed the next steps of the process and stated she is very pleased that the Park Commons West Task Force has been willing to commit there volunteer time to this project. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - April 19, 1999 and May 3, 1999 7. Miscellaneous None 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 102 Item # 9c* MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 22, 1999 City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Anthony Reel, Mr. Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore, Brian Hoffman 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes dated January 28, 1999 Corrections to Minutes: Page 2 change to “Exhibits A-I or eight exhibits”, Page 4 change to “He (Mr. Reel) also did not feel that economics should be protected”. Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated January 28, 1998. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2-99 INT -- The request of John Mohler for an interpretation appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of Sections 14:5-4.1 (A)(7)(f), 14:5- 4.1(A)(7)(d), 14:5-4-4.1(A)(7)(e), and 14:3-1 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance relating to building height, side yard setback, size of an accessory structure, and use. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Mr. Moore presented a staff report and identified the following two alternatives for the Board. The Board by majority vote of the members present may adopt the attached resolution upholding the determination of the Zoning Administrator or the Board by a 103 majority vote of the members present may direct staff to prepare a resolution overturning the determinations of the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Bloyer asked if the side yard roof technically considered a hip gable since it clearly does not look like the illustration in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Moore stated that the roof that the applicant is measuring from is a combination of really two roofs. There is a shed roof on the back and would be the east elevation. It’s more or less a combination of two separate structures. One can exist without the other. Commissioner Bloyer asked if it was possible where there is a second roof peak such as this for the side that is not measured to be taller than the side that faces the front yard. Mr. Moore indicated that it would be possible. When measuring building height, the ordinance states that you go from the side abutting a public right of way. In the case here, it is the east elevation, which is Exhibit C, that shows the garage door and gable roof right in front of it. In this instance, the rear of the property, there is a different height calculation for that if you wanted to take a measurement from the rear of the property. Again, the peak of the roof, the maximum height of the roof doesn’t change, it is 19 feet 10 inches to the peak of the roof. The grade difference from the front to the back is 6 feet. So just going from the back elevation looking at it from that grade level to the peak of the roof you are already at 13 feet and 9 inches which is still under the maximum allowable. Commissioner Bloyer stated that where she was getting at was on a hypothetical flat ground if they had two hip gables, the roof facing the front yard, that one being in compliance, and the second one measured from the ground, if that could be 2-4 feet higher. Mr. Moore stated it could be, but he did not ever see that happening. What would have to be done is manufacture two different trusses for the same structure. It would be a change in the pitch of the roof, making the building height higher. If the grade was perfectly flat, and a structure were built on there and the front portion had a 4-12 pitch and on the back it was a 9-12 pitch, then definitely the back would be higher. But when the ordinance states that you take it to the highest gable on a structure, that’s meaning that the end that is facing the public right-of-way. If you had an L-shaped structure where it would be possible to have two potential gable ends facing one elevation, you would take the highest one of the two. Chair Gainsley stated that in other words if the ordinance writers had decided that they were going to make a different kind of a ruling for a roof having different pitch lines, they would have shown a diagram having different pitch lines and an illustration to provide for that. But they didn’t, so the intent is just the front. 104 Mr. Moore stated that he would agree with that, or it would have been written into the language. John Miller, the applicant’s attorney presented documents to Chair Gainsley. Chair Gainsley entered a document dated February 9, 1999 to Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, St. Louis Park consisting of 10 pages as Exhibit A. Chair Gainsley entered a series of 5 photographs as Exhibits B, C, D, E and F. Chair Gainsley entered a series of 9 small photographs as Exhibit G. John Miller, the applicant’s attorney stated he was a lawyer in St. Louis Park and lived in the City for 50 years or more. His clients are Mr. and Mrs. John Mohler who live at 4313 Brook Avenue South in St. Louis Park. He thought it was important for the Board hear some of the things that have gone on, and wanted Mr. Mohler to tell what he did. Mr. John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue South stated that he has been at this address for about 25 years. This Fall, the building starting going up behind their house or they started preparing to do it, and a call was made to City Hall to ask what was going up. Staff informed them that a double garage was being constructed. She talked to the people in the Inspections Department to discuss some concerns about the size of the building. The Inspections Department said it would be done according to code, so they let it go at that and didn’t pay too much more attention. In November the lumber was delivered and the first part of December they looked over into the yard and could see that there was a lot more lumber delivered than what would go in a double garage. The next morning they came to City Hall and talked to Scott Moore about it. He asked to see the blueprints on the building and after about twenty minutes of looking around the office they couldn’t find the blueprints and thought the building inspector had them. He informed Mr. Moore that he had his suspicions that they are going to be building a second floor. Mr. Moore said there could be a second. At that point he asked Mr. Moore what the maximum height was in St. Louis Park for a garage. He was informed that it was 15 feet. Mr. Moore did a little drawing showing the front of a garage and the height that it would be and where the 15 feet would come to. At that point he felt a little more comfortable and the next day they left for their cabin, where they spend the winter. When they arrived at the cabin they called the Building Inspection Department, and got voice mail. They finally got through to the front and explained the situation. He knew the building codes didn’t allow for a second floor on this building. Two months later (February) a neighbor called to inform him that his suspicions might be correct. It looked like they started to build on the garage again and it was going to include a second floor. So he called City Hall and got a hold of Mr. Moore and asked what was going on at the building on Coolidge Avenue. Mr. Moore transferred him to the man who approved the second floor where he got the Building Inspector’s voice mail. He dialed back tothe front desk where he was informed that the Building Inspector was busy with a customer, but when he was 105 done he would be told to call. Three hours later a call still hadn’t been received to return his phone call. So they called John Miller. John Miller, Attorney of Mr. and Mrs. John Mohler stated that he got a call on February 2, 1999 from John Mohler. He was asked if he could go to City Hall and see what he could find out about the detached garage. He went to the City Hall were he talked with the head of the Inspections Department, Mr. Brian Hoffman. He asked for a copy of the plans for the detached garage on Coolidge. Mr. Hoffman made a copy of the plans and that afternoon they were reviewed. The first item which seemed out of place was a 24 feet ridge in the front of the garage. Exhibit C in the appeal is the front section of the building and it indicates total height of 24 feet. Without looking at the ordinance too much, Mr. Miller came back to City but he couldn’t get Mr. Moore, and got the voice mail for Mr. Hoffman. He contacted the City Manager, Charlie Meyer, who infomred him that he needed to see Mr. Moore or the Building Inspector. He was able to meet with Mr. Moore to show him the plans. Mr. Moore said that they have been approved and they were in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Miller disagreed and after some discussion, Mr. Moore realized that the plans were not in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Miller pointed out that in Mr. Moore’s staff report, he stated that a stop work order was posted on the job. Mr. Miller belives that to be false. Scott told me that when we went through those computations, well it can’t be over 19.7 feet so I’ll see that he gets the word and we will reduce it from 24 to 19.7, so that is not really correct. It was my complaint and that is the only thing we talked about and that is about the only thing I knew about at that time, so I hadn’t read the ordinance and I was not well versed in the ordinance. But Scott told me and I read the ordinance and the next morning I was prepared to go in and talk to him about the whole thing. I went in the next morning and Scott told me that he took care of the height, I told him that he can only have 19.7 feet. So I am the one that caused the delay, it wasn’t in compliance, it was 4 feet over the compliance. I talked to Scott and Brian and I told them that reading the ordinance and looking at the plans here, I have several things about this that I don’t agree with. In the first place, the rood if too high and it is not right on the plans. The building is too large and would have more square footage that the 800 square feet. It provides living space and pool room and an office, which I don’t believe is allowed and the plans are absolutely inadequate. If you look at your pictures of the building. In Exhibit D, which is a survey and you look at the plans for the buildings which are Exhibit C, D, E and F and try to figure out how to build that building, you would be amazed. There is really nothing in there to show, and I’m surprise that we have an Inspections Department that is as knowledgeable as we have that would except these plans. If you look at the building that is being built there right now, it really borders on being ridiculous, but anyway they accepted the plans. I said that I don’t think the plans are adequate and that was my thinking. They said to me that the building plans have been approved and if you disagree with out interpretation, we can get an opinion from our attorney. I thought that was great. Actually the second floor hadn’t been started at that time yet, and I wasn’t really as excited cause maybe I should have been. But anyway, I said sure, if we can get an opinion from the attorney, I said I’ve talked this matter over with Bill Thibault who is a planner here and Bill agrees with me. I think would be a great idea if we sent it to the attorney, but I said, how about the fact that we all 106 of these problems and we know that the building height is wrong and probably there are a lot of other things wrong, can’t we get a new set of plans from the owner and hold up construction until the plans are submitted and approved. Scott and Brian told me that they could not do that, that the permit had been granted and they could not do that. I told them that I talked with over with Bill and he agreed with me and this was Thursday and I would get a letter to them by the next day which was Friday. So Bill and I worked up a letter and I told them I would fax that letter to Tom Scott who is the Attorney on Friday, and I wouldn’t deliver a letter to the City. Over the weekend, I looked at our letter and I thought there are a lot of things could be made clearer in the letter and sent out better (there wasn’t any drawing). So Monday morning I talked to Bill and said we should make an addendum to that letter and make it a littler clearer. Bill said he was working with White Bear today, so I can’t do it today, but I’ll do it tomorrow. I called Tom Scott and told him we wanted to make an addendum letter and we would get it to him the next day which was Tuesday. That addendum I thought I should put on the pass out sheets I gave you because it does a couple of things. It points out how we figured the gable roof and it points out the side yards. Now the side yards they have agreed with us and we have forgotten any problem on that, it talks about over 800 square feet. So then, on Wednesday morning I thought I would call Tom Scott and see what else I could do, if I would help him in any way, if I could give me anything that would be helpful and the office told me that Tom Scott was on vacation today and would be on vacation until Monday, so there was nothing I could do. Monday was a holiday, February 15, 1999. I thought it over and many lawyers don’t work on Holiday, so he might not be there on Monday, and if he is, he is probably taking care of the stuff that happened while he was gone, so I’ll call him on Tuesday. I called him on Tuesday morning and I asked him about the project. He said that I talked with the City and generally I agree with the City, but you are clearly right that there is a violation on the setbacks. So I said, Tom when are you going to write your opinion, and he said that he wasn’t going to give a written opinion. I was really kind of disappointed at that because I thought we would have at least something to discuss, but I had to give that up. About the next thing that happened was that Scott Moore made an answer which was dated February 25, 1999 to my letter which had been given to him I went over there the first part of March and I have gone over a couple of times and talked to Scott and I would like to get a copy of the original plans, and he said you have a copy of the original plans, so I have to accept that. So I went into the file. I knew from my stuff that was given to me, that these plans had been faxed and I knew that they had been faxed to the City, because if you look at my Exhibit C which is the first page, you will see at the top of the page December 14th 1348 and then you will see this is a fax transmittal. So I knew that these plans had been faxed to the City and I discovered the facsimile transmission and I got them in the seven sheets that I gave you. I discovered that they had been transmitted to the City, sent to Scott by Michael Christianson re: Garage building permit 12-14-98 and there is a note on the bottom that reads attached are the approved building plans, so Scott must have called him for the approved building plans. Please contact me after review. Now, if these were the building plans that had been submitted, why would he have him review them and contact them. Ordinarily you would send them and that would be it. So that was really kind of 107 unusual to me. I kind of formed the idea that these weren’t the building forms and these are my reasons for it. 1. The facsimile transmission which said review them and get back to me, there must have been something in that. 2. I figured that if anybody came in to the Inspections Department here with plans like this. Scott told me he came in and first he wanted a kitchen, a bathroom and the whole ball of wax. I figured if a guy came in with this elaborate set of plans and your looking at the building that was actually built that is according to this plan and we have on our Exhibit A we got the building permit. It says in there evaluation, really which is the construction cost of $20,000. Anybody who thinks he can build that building isn’t in the construction business or even in the Inspections Department. But down on the bottom here, which is for office use only, it says City Evaluation $20,000 and it is signed by Maurice. 3. The little drawing that Scott gave to John Mohler. He said you won’t have a second floor, this is the way you figure it. It has a gable roof here and you figure you put it up here and figure the mean distance of the gable roof, so he has 15 feet on there. John had said that he said that walking back up there on the west side the kids would be able to walk up there and there wouldn’t be any second floor and they left town and felt good about it. John had apparently told him that he was going to go to Connecticut and Scott gave him Maurice’s number that he wrote down. You have heard all the difficulties. John tried to get some information, left for the east coast thinking that everything was all right. So what is wrong with the building. First of all we have to address the height of the building and Scott has already referred to that in him reply. On page 11 of the ordinance book, it has a deal in there where you figure height of the building. I have included that in my original exhibit which is Exhibit G of out appeal. Scott read a part of it in his introduction to you, and it talks about building height. In all of these building heights, they take the highest part, but they don’t take the highest part where there is a gable roof. It shows you a picture of the gable roof there and it is a lot like Scott’s drawing. Chair Gainsley asked that Mr. Miller not to refer to that drawing as Scott’s drawing because the City does not stipulate to the fact that it was his drawing and that is a questioning factor. I don’t have the provisions here to be a court to establish that so I am not going to allow that. Mr. Miller stated that he didn’t mind giving it to you, but I want it back. Chair Gainsley stated that we have copies of it here, but the City says that Scott Moore didn’t draw it so I am not going to let you refer to it as a piece of evidence. 108 Scott Moore stated that it was not his drawing and he did not draw that. That is not my handwriting. Mr. Miller stated that John Mohler says that it is Scott Moore’s handwriting. John Mohler stated that he would swear under oath that you drew that for me and the handwriting and full note was not yours, but the drawing is yours. Mr. Miller stated is the drawing yours Scott, were you ever out there. Scott Moore stated he was not going to comment. Chair Gainsley stated he was not going to allow this a pivotal piece of evidence. Mr. Miller stated that his Exhibit G sets out the building height under this ordinance. I propose to you that much of this first part here has no correlation to what we are talking about. The important thing here is that the last part of the paragraph, when talking to a gable or to the main distance to the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Now Scott says this is a gable. Now if it isn’t a gable, then they are really in trouble, because a gable gives them a lot more then they ever get under anything else. So, in addition to that, I went to the Webster’s collegiate, and I want to point out to you again that when they are talking about a gable here, they are talking about a front side and a back side, and when you talk about the gable, you are talking about putting a line there between the two eaves so that you get a triangle. Webster’s collegiate dictionary defines gable as a vertical triangular end of a building. From the corners or the eaves (which indicates two sides) to the rich. That is where I seriously disagree with Scott on his interpretation. It gives the owner an advantage in measuring height. if you look at our Exhibit I in our appeal and talk about a gable, you’re talking about two sides that make a ridge. You are talking about an end of a building according to this definition and what you do is take the mean distance on the left side and arrived at a point and we’ve taken the mean distance on the back side, which is a higher situation and arrived at a point and we’ve drawn a line between those two points, and we’ve determined that distance from the garage floor and that is 16.75 feet. Now, Scott may not think that is a gable, but the plans, the owner where he sets out the buildings, the only gable he refers to is on the back side. I like you to refer to Exhibit D. There are three sides to the building there. And if you look in the center one which is the one that faces the Mohler’s where you have all of these casement windows and skylights, it says gable roof line on the back side. So the owner refers to the back side as the gable roof line. I don’t see how you can have any other interpretation, except that you have two roofs come together, making a triangle and that is a gable according to Webster. You just don’t use a front measurement. Now the pitch on the front is 9x12 and the pitch on the back is 3x12, but Scott says you don’t use the back side and that is where one of our major disagreements is. Mr. Miller stated that the ordinance also says that you use the highest gable which would take in the back side and that is all we have done on Exhibit I. Clearly, if there is 109 anything that I am convinced of is that the gable it both sides of the building and by the definition you are looking at the end of a building where they come together. I hate to be so repetitive, but it is so important to me. Mr. Moore also says that the height is more of a perceived dimension. It is not a perceived dimension. You take it from the specific instructions in the ordinance, that is clear. He talks about the pitch and so forth, and that is all right, we can talk about the pitch, but actually what we do is measure half the distance and that is the mean distance of the gable. Now if we look back here at the other Exhibits and look at Exhibit C, the front section, and we are actually looking at the dormer and on the left side there, which is a blank and on the right side is a blank, that it a roof in there. We are not talking about blank space, we are talking about a roof that goes from the ridge way down to the front and where it doesn’t hit the dormer, it is roof there. My thinking and Scott’s thinking are two entirely different matters. He says that you use the east side of the building. I don’t see how you can even figure that you have a gable if you use one side of a building. That is really hard for me to understand. We would be very happy with something that has two sides and makes the gable. So that is all I am going to say about that. The fact is that if you the highest gable up here on the back side, and the reason why you have the highest gable up there and a 3-2 pitch, it because it allows them to have a lot more living space in there. If they didn’t have that and they had the same pitch on both sides, the 9x12 pitch on this side, I know that measures 14.9 or less 15. If we had the same pitch on this side, there wouldn’t be any question about the 15. The point of it is that there is a roof that the owner says is a gable too and you take half of the distance from the eaves to the ridge and you mark that and that is simply your 16.5 and it is over the 15. There isn’t any leeway in an ordinance, you have to go to the Council and petition a variance. They will ask what hardship have you got here. Is there any hardship in this case. The one that has the hardship is John Mohler and the people that live around him. They have to look at this monstrosity. There is one think I would like to mention about Scott’s deal. If you are going to measure the front end of a building and you are suppose to measure from the roof down to the eaves (which indicated two sides) you could probably then go on that backside go out straight or down a little bit and then you could go up with another 10 feet gable. The ordinance says it would allow that, I’m sure of that, but that is the thinking. I think I belabored the point a little bit, and I apologize for that, but it is very important to John Mohler, and very important to me and all the neighbors. Mr. Miller stated that the second point that Scott brought up in his reply was about the setback and they agreed with us on that and the attorney agreed with us on that and there is any question about that, and I am not arguing that. Mr. Miller stated that the next problem is the size of the building and Scott quotes a section (7E). The first part of that section states that the ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25% of the area between the principle structure and the rear lot line. Scott sets the whole thing out at the bottom of his first page of the Case No. 2-99 INT. It goes on to say that in R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts it should not exceed 800 square feet. It doesn’t say anything about ground floor area. 110 Chair Gainsley pointed out that the second, third, and fourth word in the first sentence say ground floor area. Mr. Miller said yes, but it talks about it here and I think that it refers to accessory, but I don’t’ think we are even talking about this section and this is why I am getting into my argument. There is a special section not on accessory buildings, but on private garages, and that section I have listed in my print out I have hear. That section is a second page and it talks about what you can do in an R-4 District. In Section 14.5-4.3 E1 we have the following language: The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in R-2 single family residential district and it says 1. A private garage not to exceed 800 square feet or 25% of the rear lot area whichever is less (remember this is written now for a private garage in an R-2 District). Does it say anything about ground area there. No it does not, and it can’t be read into that either. It is a special thing for garages in that particular area, and while Scott says it doesn’t apply in R-3, it does apply in R-3 too. But, no where does it mention ground floor. As a matter of fact, there is a pass out that they give to people who want to do a detached garage. I looked at that in doing my appeal and I thought that the section that shows the front end of the building says that the ground area of the building is 1024 square feet. So I thought I would accept that when I did my appeal, but I did a little more reading on the ordinance and on Page 13 of the ordinance, they have a definition of floor area. I copied that for you and it says the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of a building including balconies, mezzanines, basements, attics, penthouses, and attached accessory buildings. So when they figured the floor area under this ordinance, they figured the gross horizontal areas. Now that is clear enough. On a 24x24 building, I re-figured what the floor area was according to this ordinance and I copied that for you in the print out. What I did then was using that definition, we have a 24x26 building, and I figured that the two horizontal areas of the building is 1248 square feet, which is even a lot more than the 1024 square feet I had in my appeal which I thought was enough over the 800 square feet and I hadn’t read that definition. I say that the print out doesn’t refer to ground floor area, it says 800 square feet. Mr. Miller stated that now we get down to a problem in relation to the buildings there and the size of the lot. Again, I made an assumption, before I read the definition of floor area. So now, we have 1248 square feet in the detached garage and the figure on the appeal was far less. I went over to the building and took the accessory measurement, but when I saw that they include the whole horizontal area, then I had to re-figure. I had to use the survey that was furnished to us. We don’t have the liberty to go out there and take any measurements, so I used the survey and according to the survey the house has two floors with 948 square feet on the first floor. So two times that would be 1896 square feet plus the 1248 for the detached garage make is 3144 square feet. Now if we are limited in our lots to 30% of the floor area in relation to the lot area, this lot area is 57x410 which is 7980 square feet. If we take 30% of that you get 2394 square feet allowable. We got 750 or 800 square feet over the allowable floor area according to the definition in the ordinance. Now Mr. Moore doesn’t make any reference to that at all, and I suppose he thought it was minimal and I didn’t think too much about it until I read the ordinance. 111 Mr. Miller stated there isn’t any doubt about what the owner had in mind here. Scott says that he came in with plans to put in a kitchen, bathroom and second floor he had living space, pool room and office space. I submit to you that this is far in excess usage of what he is allowed under the ordinance. Actually, if he could build according to the ordinance, he would probably have another problem, and if you looked at it out there you would probably agree with me. This building is really not much less than square footage of his house and they might think that even if it could be built it would not be a detached garage, which I would not characterize it as, but it would be another primary building, but I am not here to argue that. Mr. Miller stated that I would like to point out a few other things. I mentioned to you the meager plans for a building like that, and you have the big blow ups there which indicate how big that building is and how it looks from the Mohler’s backyard and what a nice backyard the Mohler’s have and how nice they take care of it, this is a disaster to them. When I sent them these plans in Connecticut they couldn’t believe it. Chair Gainsley indicated that the Commissioners have all been out to the site. Mr. Miller stated that I think the citizens of St. Louis Park look to your Board for interpretation of zoning laws and to see that they are obeyed in the City. I was just thinking about something in the paper today which has some correlation. They City of St. Louis Park closed down a concrete plant. Scott probably knows more about this than I do, but they closed it down because it was a violation or the ordinance. I don’t know how the case came out in the District Court, because all I know is the newspaper report, but the case was appealed to the appeals court here and the appeals court held with the City. What the owner wanted the City to do, was to pay them for their property. The City said that it was a violation of the ordinance, we don’t have to condemn your property of pay you for the property. The court of appeals and agreed with the City and what happened in the legislature yesterday, they passed a bill that substantiates what the City did. They made a law that if it was a violation of the ordinance they don’t have any rights. Mr. Miller stated that I want to say a couple things about the law. I have read a number of cases and I am honest with you and I can tell you this. Where you have a situation here as I see it, where there is a permit granted that doesn’t conform to the ordinance, the court said that the permit is void and the owner has any rights to come back. The owner is charged with constructive knowledge of what the ordinances are. Not only doesn’t he have any right if the permit is void, but he should not have accessed for the permit in the first place, because he is charged with knowledge of what the ordinances are. The courts all hold that case, and I’ll site you a couple of things. Generally zoning ordinances are regarded as being aimed at conserving property values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. (53 Northwestern 27). Another case: When zones are established and citizens buy an improved property relying on restrictions imposed by law, they have a right to permanency and security that the law should afford (97 Northwestern Second 273). The main case on this whole problem is a case Lowry verses the City of Mankato (42 Northwestern Second 553): A building permit issued in violation of the 112 zoning ordinance by an official lacking power to alter or vary the ordinance (and there is nobody here that has power to do that, except the Council) the permit is void and the zoning regulation may be enforced not withstanding the fact that the permitee may have commenced building operation. They go on to say that construction that would permit the use of premises in question for a proposed garage should be voided for the reason that it would in affect authorize a use which the plain intention of the ordinance was to prohibit. They go on to say the reason given for the rule by authorities that both the granting of the permit, and the varying of the zoning restriction involve the exercise of government power which cannot be exercised by an officer upon who it has not been conferred nor set at naught by the action of a property owner proceeding in defiance thereof. In the Alexander case here they say experience has shown that the wisdom of the prevailing rule that persons dealing with municipal officers and agents are bond by constructive notice of the law and public records with respect to the powers and functions of such officers and agents. In other words, they can’t rely on that. Mr. Miller stated that I submit to you that we’ve done everything we could. The Mohler’s came here trying to figure out what was going to happen, the plans were lost and couldn’t be found. They were told there was not going to be a second story. They were told and I was told that it was building according to ordinance, before I really knew what the ordinance was. I got the plans and I voiced an objection to Scott and Brian and I tried to get them to stop the thing, because it wasn’t being built at that time. One thing that bothered me too. Scott and I have had good relations, but I just think he made a mistake. I looked at the file one day and see a letter in there dated February 8th and I read that letter and it was the same letter that I got on February 25th. I was a little concerned that that’s the letter that was written before they got my addendum and before they talked to the attorney, before we had any discussion, but its the same letter and it really doesn’t matter. I want to say that this is a nice neighborhood, the ordinance is designed to preserve the character neighborhood. Mr. Miller stated that I suggest that the ordinance is violated in height, it doesn’t figure a gable roof, and we have to figure the highest gable, t doesn’t meet the square footage, the precise thing that was designed for R-2 and private garage, and it doesn’t meet the square footage of the total all square footage in relation to the lot. If we are going to interpret this ordinance the way that we are trying to interpret here, I say that everybody that has a nice lot in St. Louis Park, who can have a building like that be put within 5 feet of their lot line, better shake in their boots, cause it is going to happen. Walter Walker, 4301 Brook Avenue South, three houses north of John Mohler. Two points I would like to make. I have a four season porch on the back of my house which is in affect a family room. In looking out on the Slattery home on Coolidge, as I look at it, the roof line of this garage is higher than the roof line of the house itself. It’s big and tall. The other point I’d like to make is this is a garage, at least it is so stated on the permit, but the layout is such that with some modifications it could be living quarters, that is if they put water and sanitary drain. This is apparently not going in at this time, but what is to prevent them from doing that sometime in the future. Of course it doesn’t fit with the 113 code at the present time, but many things are done inside four walls without the knowledge of the City or the Inspection Department and they may force them to take it out, but to me it appears like they are going from a residential neighborhood to a place where you have the potential for a second dwelling. Commissioner Robertson stated that you put a lot of weight on Webster’s definition of gable and if you read the last line talking about the height of the building it talks about the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. How would you apply Webster’s definition to a hip roof. Mr. Miller stated that I think a hip roof is like that and it goes up like that and then it comes down. Commissioner Robertson stated that a hip roof angles down on all sides. Mr. Miller stated you have to use the highest gable on the building whatever that is. Commissioner Robertson stated that is correct, but I’m saying that Webster’s definition is not a construction term. There are many terms in construction and architecture that are not found in a Webster’s dictionary. I am an architect and my word processor kills out most of my words on spell check. Mr. Miller asked if you would find a gable by looking at the front one side. Commissioner Robertson indicated yes, a gable can easily have one end. Mr. Miller stated he wasn’t talking about one end, I’m talking about the front end of the building. Commissioner Robertson said that if you look at the front of the building, the form over the garage door on the east is a gable. Mr. Miller stated he disagreed with that and the owner calls it a dormer, and I call it a dormer. Commissioner Robertson stated that it is still by definition of a roof form is a gable. This text comes directly from the uniform building code. Chair Gainsley stated it was a word of art, it is not a dictionary meaning. William Thibault, 454 Ford Road, St. Louis Park, stated that I think the simplest explanation is simply this. The City’s response to the appeal, does not dispute the measurement or the fact that it is or is not a gable. I think you would have to conclude that it meets the definition of gable. So whatever the definition may be of a hip roof, would probably not be material to this because we are really focusing on a gable. If you 114 decide that it is part of the definition that you are going to use and the definitions says that you must take the mean distance of the highest gable. The starting point, the City agrees, is the east side of the garage that gives you the beginning point. The next point that you take to determine the highest is to take any gable that you want on there, but perhaps take all of them, find the mean distance of all of the gables, the one with the highest it the one that you apply. Then you conclude that the 16.75 in Exhibit I gives you the mean distance of that gable which is 16.75 feet above the floor or above the grade in front of the garage. One of the reasons the neighbors think that that is such a high building perhaps is that the ordinance at the beginning of that definition says that you take the curb in the front or the grade at the garage in this case or the accessory building whichever is the highest. So you get a higher starting point, that starting point is four or five feet higher than the curb. The conclusion is that if you agree that the measurement on Exhibit I property reflects the mean distance of that gable, then you must apply that as the definition is written that is the highest gable, and the mean distance of the highest gable. Commissioner Robertson stated that he disagrees in that this verbiage comes through the uniform building code which refers to the absolute height of the building because we are looking at life safety issues. It’s referenced at them is the highest grade all around the building. The idea that that the zoning looks at perceived height of a building is that it looks at as perceived from the public right of way which is why your datum point does not go all the way around the building, but it is from the front curb, or from the facade facing the right of way and it measures to the highest gable that is visible from the right of way. Now on this, the ridge is the highest point, it’s kind of a common high point. The highest point, it is kind of a common high point, the highest point of the building is visible from all sides, but the perceived height as I read it, is from looking at the east elevation of the building and it has nothing to do, I agree that if the building is rotated 90 degrees you would take the gable from the hip or 3x12 slope, but since that is on the back side of the building, that is not what is taken into account. What you take into account is strictly viewed from the east elevation. If you look at the drawing of the east elevation, the drawing with the 10, 7 and 7 on it, not taking what those numbers are right now, but that is the correct elevation by which to take it and by that drawing, the height of the building would be 17 feet if the numbers are accurate, but that is the side we would look at. William Thibault stated that Mr. Gainsley I submit the appeal is from the zoning ordinance, and it is a zoning determination, its the proper ordinance to use when applying land use and development regulations in the City. The building code has a different function and the ordinance does not use the work perceived. The applicant in this appeal has done exactly what is stated in the front page of your report, that paragraph that deals with the definition in Section 14:3-1. It gives you the first half of that paragraph the starting point. Everyone seems to agree that the starting point is not the curb level, because that it lower, it is the highest point, it is the east side of that accessory building. The second thing it says is that if he finds all those various building types, many of which go to the top to the roof, on the flat roof, or to the peak on a dome. You get to the very end there, the last word says, now remember we have agreement you start at the east side 115 of the building, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitch or hip roof. If you agree that the drawing in Exhibit I can be interpreted as a gable, which I think every would, it meets the same gable definition or application if you use any other side of the building, you come up with a dimension of 16.75 feet, that is higher than 15 feet, so therefore it does not meet the maximum height. Secondly, the building officials, zoning administrator has decided not to take the mean distance of that gable, but instead to take one of the lower gables. I said to the attorney representing the client here, what if the house or the garage or the accessory building had 4, 5 or 6 gables. You don’t take the lowest one, you take the mean distance of the highest one and perceived is not in the zoning ordinance and it is a very straight forward, simple application of the ordinance. Chair Gainsley asked that the Board take a 5 minute break. Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections stated that first off I do want to apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Mohler and everyone else here is because some of what I have heard tonight, I have not been aware of and there is absolutely excuse why you are not getting phone calls back within a day. That is not acceptable to me, and I did not know about it. If a situation like that every arises, please call me and ask for the Manager of the Department. As far as the plans once again, there has been some confusion, but we made every effort to basically have the plans here and they are accurate and the bottom line is does the project out on the site meet the code. One of the things that we need to be aware of when we are doing code enforcement, and I am responsible for the zoning, as well as, the building end of it is that the applicant basically has a right to receive a right to receive a permit unless we can say that it is absolutely in violation of code. This is something that we talked about with our City Attorney quite a bit, when is a tie, as an example. If I came in and asked for a permit, and the code may be vague or it may indicate one way or the other, basically that applicant wins the tie and the City is obliged to give the permit to the applicant. Sometimes that always doesn’t give the result maybe the community wants, but it is something legally we deal with. The last issue I have is that we realize that sometimes the City’s zoning code may allow things that don’t seem to fit into neighborhoods and some of our Councilmembers are aware of this too. Sometime next month I will be taking some zoning issues, and this is one of them, to a study session, just to let the Council know that here are some things that we have discovered in the zoning code. Basically it is up to the Council to decide if this is the intent of what we want to have in the community, if so they can direct Staff to do code amendments or else they can decide that this is truly the code they want to have. So we are going to be talking to Council about some general zoning issues and areas where it is time to look at what the code allows. Lynn Flaherty, 4317 Brook Avenue, next door to John Mohler and kiddy corner to the building in question. She stated that all of you stated, or actually you spoke for everyone else, you said trust me, we have looked at the building from your view point. I checked with Mr. Mohler, I checked with Marjorie who lives next door to me, and I know myself, I don’t believe my children allowed anybody into our yard without my permission, and I am wondering what viewpoint you got of the building. Because it is really difficult to see 116 from the street. If you are talking about how it is viewed from the street, so you are looking from the street from their point of view and from our point of view. But where we look at it is from our backyard. I don’ t believe anybody had permission from myself, Marjorie or from John to go into our backyards. I would have more than likely let you go in my backyard, so I am wondering how did you get that view point. Chair Gainsley stated that Ms. Flaherty may comment, but you can’t ask up questions. You can say anything you wish, but we don’t answer questions. Ms. Flaherty stated that she is a tax payer in St. Louis Park, therefore, you are all people that have been appointed and basically you work for us, the tax payers of St. Louis Park. If I cannot ask you a question about how you arrived at something and you refuse to answer, I don’t have much trust. Chair Gainsley stated that we simply visited the area, the answer is very easy and very short. We didn’t have to go in your area to see the building behind his house. Ms. Flaherty stated that I believe you do. Chair Gainsley stated that was a matter of contention and you can certainly think that if you wish. Ms. Flaherty stated that you can see it very well from Morningside, but from our part of the street you really need to be in the backyard, and I welcome all of you to come into my backyard, let me know when you are coming and I will show you what it looks like and I am sure that John and Marjorie would do the same, and I can’t speak for anybody else here necessarily, but if that was in your backyard, and you spoke about the intent of the ordinance, I think if you looked at it, you’d see that this building was clearly not the intent of the ordinance. I personally feel that if I was working for the City of St. Louis Park, if yo u are approving something, the intent of the ordinance should be more important than the specific whether this is 1.5 inch or 1.25 inch. The intent is not to have a second building there. I have one other question. I will pose this question, but you don’t have to answer it, because I can’t ask questions. Something to keep in mind, maybe you might look at the plans. Is there a utility sink in that garage, if there is, they have water access already and that water access could very easily be brought up to the second floor and it becomes a livable building. Chair Gainsley stated that there was not a utility sink in the garage. Mr. Miller stated that Scott brought up a couple of things. He talked about the building on the west side being lower than the building on the east side. That does something my perception. When I see something higher up there. I don’t think that his measurement is in the code and that is where we have a basic disagreement too. And with regard to his analysis of the specific provision for a garage in R-2, my interpretation, and I have interpreted a few ordinances. My interpretations have always said that you use the 117 interpretation of the general in light of the specific. Now the general doesn’t say ground area. You can assume that it might be ground area, or you can assume that it might not be. I say that the word it there refers to accessory building and not ground area and that is a case for the courts. Scott referred to a letter from the attorney in which he says I generally agree with staff’s interpretation. Well, I heard that over the telephone. But, his specific deal here, the garage does not exceed the maximum 15 feet on the street side, we don’t deny that. We talk about the highest gable, we don’t talk about the east side that you can see from the street. I don’t disagree with that, but I disagree with the height as determined. Commissioner Reel stated that Mr. Miller it looks like we are going to be stuck on semantics for the evening. I want to settle first then the ground floor question. As you look at the 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e) which says that total ground area in the R-1, R-2 or R-3. Mr. Miller, would you agree that this means that at least one of those has to have a ground floor area ratio. Mr. Miller stated that he would not agree. Commissioner Reel stated that would not imply to you that one of them has somewhere in its specific code. Mr. Miller stated that Scott says that it doesn’t apply in one area, but I don’t even agree with that. William Thibault stated he would like to make one comment about that paragraph. As far as the it referring to the ground area, or for the accessory building, as I read that paragraph, ground floor area is singular and accessory buildings is plural and it references a singular object. Commissioner Robertson asked dot make one quick response Mr. Chairman. The ordinance in the rules in the front section states that the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. That is very common in ordinances and that is written intentionally so that you don’t get into the dispute whether you are talking about a single item or plural item throughout the construction. I can give you the section number on that very quickly. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reel stated that what I was getting at is on Page 79, the particular paragraph mentions ground floor area, lists out R-1, R-2, R-3. At least one of those has to have it. Mr. Miller pointed out that the R-2 description on Page 95 excludes the ground floor area requirement. What I wanted to get at is that all three of the specific ones exclude the word ground floor, which takes us back to the original paragraph covering all saying the ground floor area ratio. To me that puts that particular question to rest. 118 Commissioner Robertson stated he would agree with that and he would revisit once again the measurement on the building height. I have dealt with a lot of building height issues over the years myself, and as the variation of this text from a general thing like a building code to the zoning, it is looking at how the community perceives the building and in the same way that you have a limit on possibly on a three story building, it can have a walk out condition in the back which is not visible from the front and is allowed, but from the back it may look like four story, or actually we saw one not to long ago that was a five story from the back. It is as perceived from the street is the height of the building as it is addressed by the community. So I feel very firm in reading it and dealing with different communities including this was on building height, is that you take the height based on the flat drawing of the elevation that faces the public right of way, in this case the east elevation. Mr. Miller has said that he has agreed with the measurements as Scott has called them out if they are based on the east side of the building. Mr. Miller thinks they should be based on the north side of the building, but as I read my perception of the ordinance, it that you take everything from the public right of way side. Commissioner Bloyer stated that she wanted to state first off that I did take go and take a look from the brook side, and there were a couple of neighbors out there who were probably wondering what this black grand am doing the slow roll was doing going down the street. There were perspectives by the way where you could see further South on Brook of that same block where you could see the building much better by the way. As a matter of fact, I thought somebody was going to come out and shoot me considering I was going down somebody’s driveway and trying to take one heck of a good look. Unfortunately, you property had a rather forbidding fence so it was going to be difficult to get into the back yard, which your next door neighbor has a rather long driveway with a chain linked fence so I’m on my tippy toes peeking. This is however an interpretive case and so it is really not specific to a particular property. It obviously deals with this property, but we are interpreting it. I have to take issue in particular with not only 14:5- 4.1(A)(7)(e) but also the deconstruction of building height. Quite frankly, what you are trying to do is to break it down into two pieces and make the second portion which measures the mean distance of the highest gable, making that a stand alone sentence and that is not the intent. By the way, I am a corporate income tax accountant. The reason I bring that up, I deal quite a bit with the law and I also deal quite a bit with cases are tried on the basis of law. What I have consistently seen is especially on an interpretation case, they first to the law, they will go to the uniform building code, they will go to any preambles to establish intent and they will look quite heavily on this body on our interpretation of this law to determine what the intent was. I would have to agree with the other Commissioners at this point that they did not intend for deconstruction, they very clearly stated building height on Page 11 under 3-1 definitions, that it is suppose to be from the finished grade level or the curb line. They did not intend for it to be deconstructed and take in a completely different elevation and start measuring from there. And then on Page 79 where you are talking about the ground floor area, that I would say they very clearly intended in all points of that particular to be talking about ground floor 119 area, they didn’t mean to add every single floor that they could possible find in the building. Commissioner Roberts stated that he probably went about this different than the other Commissioners in that I didn’t visit the property because it was kind of a finding of fact. I have lived in St. Louis Park for 20 years and been on Board as a volunteer for about 9- 10 years now. They are asking me for my experience in dealing with the zoning code, looking at this as a case to apply the zoning code and give my interpretation of it, just like Mr. Miller has given his interpretation on it very well already. I went through this, I didn’t even read Scott’s report. I read Mr. Miller’s thing first to see what his arguments were. As I went through it, I went through the ordinance and got my interpretation. I guess I would say, with regard to the minimum height, the way I read the ordinance is that we are dealing with the part of the building that faces the pubic street. To me it is the gable that is facing the public street right of way, so that is where the measurement should be made. In my reading, that is what I thought it should be even before I read Scott’s about how they measured it and his arguments. It’s my interpretation of the ordinance is what I am going off of. When I looked at the rear and side yard ones, which have since corrected. I looked at your Exhibits and I noted on the plan that it had been fixed. There was notation on there saying that the eaves have been cut back to 1 foot instead of 2 feet, so I figured that maybe they aren’t going to argue that because it really doesn’t make sense now. With regard to the square footage, again I looked at the ordinance which was very specific as far as dealing with accessory buildings and that is the one that I saw made the most sense for me to interpret as what to apply to this. I read the one that you stated and this one made more sense and was more applicable. Also with regard to the ground floor ratio, I assume if Mr. Miller didn’t have the most up to date ordinance, but since we do get those things on a regular basis to read and understand, I figured that one was probably going to be either argued or not taken up or we could dismiss that one right away as well. I figured that was what I was suppose to be doing, interpret the zoning ordinance per this case and that is what I have done. I then read Scott Moore’s report and most of the things that he stated out there were the things that I had already made up my own mind about. Chair Gainsley stated that this case involves a property, but it is really about an ordinance and the property is a secondary issue here and the ordinance is a primary issue here. In looking at the ordinance, I have to conclude that the Staff’s report presents it fairly and interprets the ordinance as it is shown, especially as it regards the height and as is regards the area of the building, the articles and the ordinance say ground floor area, to me that makes sense. I might have been more helpful if the last sentence might have contained a ground floor comment, but it obviously refers back to the beginning of the paragraph anyway. To me in reading it as a whole, it seemed to be that they intended the ground floor area to be that type of measurement that was required. I took it a little bit more from Commissioner Robert’s point of view afterward, but I do agree with the other Commissioners that I believe that the staff’s interpretation is essentially correct. Mr. Miller asked to submit another document. 120 Chair Gainsley indicated that it really doesn’t have a bearing on this. We are talking about an interpretation of the ordinance here, and the property is not is what is in question. Commissioner Reel stated that there is one last portion of the appeal here that I’m guessing we are all in agreement on which is the usage that has not been addressed. Myself particularly about the usage we can always sit here and say it could be turned into this down the road. We can always say that a garage can be used for storage of ordinance, so we should not approve any garages. That is not what we are expected to do, and it is not what the City is expected to is to guess on what could come of it. It is only allowed to go off of what is proposed. There is currently no water not accessories, bathroom, toilets, kitchen accessory in the plan and that is all that the City has to work from. For myself, I just wanted to have this on the public record, because it is part of the appeal addressing that particular point of contention. Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded to accept staff’s findings. Motion passed Unanimously. Vote of 5-0. Scott Moore stated that you have a right to appeal the Board’s decision to the City Council. What we need is a written request from you within the next 10 days. Mr. Miller stated that he wanted the original plans be entered into the public record. Mr. Moore stated that the original plans cannot be made part of the public record, but we can make a copy of the original. Mr. Miller stated that he didn’t want a copy. Chair Gainsley stated that this is argumentative and he was not going to allow this and that Mr. Miller should talk with the Staff outside of this meeting. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Communication: a. Variance Appeal for Case #1-99 VAR - Lot split for Michael Sward b. Variances being reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council when in conjunction with another City process (C.U.P). Mr. Reel moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion to table the Item 7: Communications until the next meeting. Motion Passed Unanimously. Vote of 5-0 121 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned. Motion Passed Unanimously. Vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Moore Zoning Administrator 122 Item # 9d* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 14, 1999 - 6:05 p.m. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, Bridget Gothberg, Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: William Gavzy, Walter Hartman STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Joanna Brownstein, Tom Harmening, Nancy Sells OTHERS PRESENT: Marilyn Hoeft, League of Women Voters 1. Call to Order Vice-Chairperson Catherine Courtney called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of March 10, 1999 Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the minutes of March 10, 1999. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. Insurance i. Flood Insurance Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority approve a premium of $1,791 for flood insurance which provides coverage of $250,000 for building and $69,500 for contents with a $1,000 deductible each. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a 123 vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. 124 ii. Umbrella Coverage Ms. Anderson said that discussion of the item would be postponed until the May 12 meeting. Mr. Lidstrom, the Authority's risk consultant, will be in attendance. b. Review of Louisiana Court HOME Proposal Ms. Brownstein said that the presentation would be postponed until the May 12 meeting. c. Park Commons Mr. Harmening said that the presentation would be postponed until the May 12 meeting. d. Authorization of Execution of a Purchase Agreement for Sale of 3401 Rhode Island Ave. Ms. Brownstein said that the vacant lot is being sold in order to allow for the construction of a new single family home. Ms. Brownstein stated that the lot was purchased through the Home Renewal Program as part of a joint acquisition with 3405 Rhode Island Ave. South. The property at 3401 Rhode Island was purchased with the intent to sell it to Harry and Millie Dorholt who are being relocated by the Economic Development Authority as a result of the Park Commons redevelopment project. Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority authorize execution of a purchase agreement for the sale of the vacant lot at 3401 Rhode Island Ave. South at a purchase price of $32,500. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. e. Authorization of Execution of a Purchase Agreement - 1454 Jersey Ave. Ms. Brownstein provided background on the property and its appropriateness for inclusion in the Home Renewal program. Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Frank Knoke for the purchase of 1454 Jersey Ave. S. at a purchase price of $35,000. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. 125 f. Resolution to Authorize Sale of 2916 Maryland Ave. to the City of St. Louis Park Resolution No. 460 Ms. Brownstein explained that the lot, owned by the Authority under the Home Renewal Program, has been identified by the City's Public Works Department as the location for a storm water ponding area needed to resolve neighborhood flooding issues. Commissioner Courtney inquired about the status of the development agreement with Al Stobbe Homes. Ms. Brownstein responded that the agreement had expired. Mr. Stobbe received a letter regarding the expiration and an offer was made to him to submit the costs he had incurred. Mr. Stobbe did not submit a bill for costs. Commissioner Courtney asked if public hearings had been held on the ponding project. Ms. Brownstein responded that neighborhood meetings were held and that public hearings were forthcoming. A storm water study of 30 sites was undertaken, and official action was taken on all sites. In response to Commissioner Courtney's question of whether neighbors of 2916 Maryland were notified, Ms. Brownstein responded that neighborhood meetings about the ponding project were held and included all affected residents. Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority authorize the sale of the property at 2916 Maryland Ave. S. to the City of St. Louis Park and authorize the Chair and Executive Director to enter into any agreements necessary to facilitate the sale for a purchase price of $48,136.25. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. g. Habitat for Humanity - Permission to Undertake New Construction Projects Ms. Brownstein reported that with the increasing rise of sales prices in the current real estate market, staff have not been able to identify a second property available for purchase within the $60,000 acquisition budget that can be cost-effectively rehabilitated. She said that Habitat has expressed an interest in doing a new construction project in St. Louis Park if a rehab project doesn't develop. Ms. Brownstein explained that HOME program rules require the 1998 funds to be committed to a project by June 30, 1999. Commissioners encouraged staff to explore all options for the program, including new construction. 126 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 99-4 Mr. Harmening reviewed additions to the claims list for HabInc. ($7,975.00) and Best Western Midway ($266.64). Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of Claims List No. 99-4 as amended in the amount of $147,829.64. Commissioner Row seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. 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 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Walter Hartman Secretary 127 Item # 9e* May 21, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3CMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 295.00 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 608.24 AMERI-GLOBE PUBLISHING OTHER ADVERTISING 169.00 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 150.90 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 213.89 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 564.84 BARNES & NOBLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.15 BARON, EILEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 227.65 BATTERIES PLUS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 383.34 BEEKS PIZZA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 1,170.45 BIFFS INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 407.88 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 82.01 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 213.41 BOHN WELDING COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 127.90 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 33.46 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BRYANT GRAPHICS INC PRINTING & PUBLISHING 325.89 CALLGHAN, ROBERT BUILDING 69.80 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 170.13 CD PUBLICATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 437.00 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.45 COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,484.56 CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 115.00 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.34 CUSTOM GRAPHIX PRINTING & PUBLISHING 467.54 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,023.00 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 180.00 DELEGARD TOOL CO SMALL TOOLS 168.68 DONNELLY, RICHARD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00 128 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 43.55 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 443.00 GAMETIME OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,113.48 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES (211.38) GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 19.20 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.77 HATCH SALES CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.93 HEDBERG AGGREGATES LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 219.29 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 120.22 HENN CO OFFICE OF PLAN & DEV OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28,515.63 HENN CO TREASURER OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 2,935.56 HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 700.00 HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 281.75 HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 258.79 IACP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 175.00 ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 168.48 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.29 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 89,203.31 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 396.54 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 28 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 797.22 INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,581.83 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41 IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 219.85 129 JUSTUS LUMBER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 678.99 K C GROVES TREE EXPERTS LANDSCAPING SERVICE 2,311.05 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43 KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 465.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 747.41 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 384.65 LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16 LASER LABS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 78.50 LINSK FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 104.83 M A APPAREL INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 207.30 M/A ASSOCIATES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.67 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 663.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.85 METROCALL TELEPHONE 60.72 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 36,382.50 MEYER, LYNN M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MINN SAFETY COUNCIL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 185.00 MINNESOTA ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNIO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 20.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 968.87 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN NATURALISTS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 5.00 MORGAN, PAM GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.19 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 133.24 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 904.29 MUNSTERMAN, KEVIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 297.85 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 170.71 N Y S C A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 980.00 NELSON, DALE S INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 543.15 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 27,627.73 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 314.80 OLSON, DON GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.99 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.92 PALMS BAKERY GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.95 130 PANELCRAFT BUILDING 34.40 PAPER WAREHOUSE- GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.31 PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT SALES I GENERAL SUPPLIES 126.96 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS (135.31) PHILBROOK, LAURA BUILDING RENTAL 125.00 PHYSIO CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 151.76 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.22 QUEST ENGINEERING INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 457.43 QUICKSILVER POSTAGE 786.99 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (33.61) REEF, SANDRA TREE MAINTENANCE 133.37 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.81 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 265.12 RIVERS, MARY E INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00 S & T SERVICES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69.23 SAM'S CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.18 SCHLOTZKYS OF ST LOUIS PARK MEETING EXPENSE 35.08 SCHWAAB INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.43 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 30.00 SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE SMALL TOOLS 31.90 SHOPPE, GEORGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.40 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,182.02 SOLHAUG, NANCY SEASON TICKET- NONRESIDENT 132.00 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTIO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,125.00 ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 24,356.73 ST LOUIS PARK GIRLS FASTPITCH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 694.50 ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE SMALL TOOLS 18.53 STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,133.00 STRASZEWAKI,TONY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 228.60 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 116.13 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 354.40 TAPE DISTRIBUTORS OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 151.57 TEKsystems OFFICE FURNITURE & 2,281.50 131 EQUIPMENT TREADWAY GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.06 TRI STATE BOBCAT LICENSES/TAXES 1,917.00 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,650.12 ULTRAMAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 960.00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,588.42 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.20 WALKER, RODNEY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 160.81 WALSH, CINDY S GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.18 ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 184.25 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 236.43 275,657.53 May 28, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 13.76 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 12.64 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIAT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 717.00 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,717.21 ANDERSEN INC, EARL F OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 14,258.06 ANDERSEN TRUCKING, KEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 620.41 ASMUS, BARBARA SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 30.00 ASSO OF RECORDS MGRS AND ADMIN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 50.00 BACHMAN'S LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 42.58 BCR SUPPLIES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 175.09 BECKER, CAROLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 52.05 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,673.13 BLOMBERG, MARILYN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.43 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.71 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 128.42 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) 132 BURROWS, KELLI GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.60 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,725.67 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 351.45 CARTRIDGE CARE OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 22,459.30 CHEROKEE POWER EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 38.22 CHIEF SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.50 COMPUSA INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 26.61 CUB FOODS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 520.72 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00 DAKOTA CO TECH COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 180.00 DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 272.33 DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 137.20 DOBBINS & ASSOCIATES, MARY G PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 350.00 E W ROBBINS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 745.50 EMERGENCY LITE SERVICE CENTER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 87.86 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.57 EPI COR ADULT ATHLETICS 230.00 ERICKSON, JUDIE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 53.00 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 720.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,930.27 FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,082.15 FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 128.66 FORD, JESS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.10 GARDNER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.57 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 129.38 133 GOLDEN VALLEY HTG & A/C HEATING 21.18 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 481.25 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DENTAL INSURANCE 3,005.20 HANSON CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 356.60 HARMENING, TOM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 859.26 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,685.58 HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF COMM CORRE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 6,400.00 HODGDON, GREGG STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,449.98 HOFFMAN, BRIAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.94 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,678.40 HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 282.85 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 531.44 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 453.70 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,058.57 ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 89.67 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 114,955.50 INDELCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 56.26 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 42.73 JONES, MARK UNREALIZED REVENUE 455.72 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 180.27 K & K SALES GENERAL SUPPLIES 189.72 KAISER, CINDY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 55.80 KLEINMAN, JAN PROGRAMMING 48.00 KLUMPNER, DAVE GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 181.16 KNUTSEN, GREG TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 191.06 KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41 KOPESKY, JODY ADULT ATHLETICS 20.00 L M C INSURANCE TRUST MOTOR VEHICLE LIAB INSURANCE 148.00 LAKELAND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 209.81 134 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 177.59 LARSON, TOM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 52.29 LASER QUIPT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 354.70 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 31.32 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 GENERAL SUPPLIES 514.40 MANSER, ROBERT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,347.50 MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 10.99 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.09 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 353.36 METROCALL TELEPHONE 22.81 MIDWEST LANDSCAPES LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 14,103.00 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.10 MIND SHARP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,000.00 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 45.00 MINNESOTA BOOK STORE PRINTING & PUBLISHING 83.14 MINNESOTA TRUCKING ASSOC. SMALL TOOLS 24.39 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 388.50 MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 4,244.34 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 604.55 MN STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSI TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 200.00 MN TACTICAL OFFICER'S ASSOC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 1,120.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 946.28 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,397.24 N E P CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 1.10 NATHENSON & ASSOCIATES, JUDITH GENERAL SUPPLIES 105.98 NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 195.00 NEXTEL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00 NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.74 NOVARTIS NUTRITION CORP. GENERAL CUSTOMERS 8,587.33 135 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 358.11 PALM BROTHERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.50 PANNING, CRAIG GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.86 PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT SALES I GENERAL SUPPLIES 366.06 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 66.44 PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C GENERAL SUPPLIES 68.13 POMMER MFG CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.43 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.51 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 4.56 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.41 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (33.61) RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 46.85 RARDIN, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 118.42 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 54.97 ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,500.00 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 284.01 SCHATZER, WADE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.59 SCS INTERACTIVE GENERAL SUPPLIES 104.77 SEDGWICK JAMES OF MINN INC PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 280.00 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 30.00 SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 52.70 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 357.84 SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 POSTAGE 679.60 SMITH & WESSON GENERAL SUPPLIES 246.48 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS OTHER ADVERTISING 1,734.82 STANDARD PLUMBING GENERAL SUPPLIES 605.77 STAR TRIBUNE PRINTING & PUBLISHING 137.50 STATE OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 25.00 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 430.95 TEKsystems OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,705.01 THOMPSON, DEBORA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 162.80 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 7,170.45 136 TRANSMISSION SHOP INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,420.71 TRAVELERS EXPRESS ADULT ATHLETICS 60.00 TURKINGTON, DONALD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.26 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 147.00 U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 2,605.15 VEIT & COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 9,334.40 VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 190.31 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.61 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 113.58 WARNING LITES OF MN INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,499.85 WEST GROUP LEGAL NOTICES 146.97 WEST WELD SMALL TOOLS 319.56 WESTERN CEDAR SUPPLY BUILDING 69.80 WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,522.75 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 162.30 280,209.73 June 4, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ABLE COURIER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8.00 ACTION RADIO & COMM INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,214.10 AHLGREN CONSTRUCTION CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.85 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 305.00 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 353.00 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.99 APPLIED PRODUCTS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,977.93 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 566.78 BARNES, ROBERT GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.99 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 431.35 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 243.41 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000.00 BOY SCOUT TROOP 369 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT 2,595.83 137 SUPPLIES BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 44.25 BURROWS, KELLI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.40 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 401.74 CITY OF SAINT PAUL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 295.00 CODE THREE INSTALLATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 673.25 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,777.14 COLOR TILE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,718.83 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN MAGAZINE LEGAL NOTICES 308.85 CRILEY, KATHI L PETTY CASH 350.00 CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,072.00 DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,057.18 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 140.00 DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 128.43 DENNYS ROLL-OFF SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 585.00 DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 931.03 DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 319.47 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 720.00 EMERGENCY LITE SERVICE CENTER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 99.03 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.99 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,831.73 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,778.01 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 6.50 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 42.59 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 371.52 GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 473.90 138 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 117.10 HAZELWOOD, BRADLEY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 650.00 HECKLER & KOCH INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 695.00 HENN CO PUBLIC RECORDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D LICENSES/TAXES 50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSES/TAXES 110.50 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,350.00 HOME DEPOT/GECF BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 229.47 HOME HARDWARE SMALL TOOLS 6.38 I C B O SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 205.00 I T L PATCH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 292.35 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 14,645.20 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 710.36 IVES, PAUL F LANDSCAPING SERVICE 31.40 J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.30 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 57.66 K & K SALES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 66.68 KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 43.71 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 7,575.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 430.20 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,384.50 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 332.62 LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 89.75 LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 65.50 LAWRENCE, RANDY GENERAL SUPPLIES 258.37 LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.08 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 26,958.52 LUSE, JOHN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 153.00 M C F O A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 30.00 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 47.90 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 549.31 MANSK, DAVID GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00 139 MASON-CUTTERS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 678.25 MC BRIDE, KATHLEEN MEETING EXPENSE 29.72 MCGRANN SHEA FRANZEN CARNIVAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,513.15 MCI WORLDCOM TELEPHONE 9.79 METROCALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.79 MEYER, CHARLES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 437.20 MICHAEL LYNNE'S TENNIS SHOP GENERAL SUPPLIES 163.80 MILLERBERND, DENNIS LICENSES/TAXES 90.63 MINN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 10.00 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,967.65 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 20.98 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MORGAN, PAM GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.70 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 163.93 N Y S C A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.00 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 951.85 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 59.17 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,687.56 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 20.61 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 26.96 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 44.69 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 949.13 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,800.00 POINTED PRINTING SERVICES PRINTING & PUBLISHING 541.50 PRYOR RESOURCES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 298.00 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (33.61) RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,079.73 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 213.79 ROHLIK, CHAR PETTY CASH 200.00 SAMPSON MILLER ADVERTISING GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.63 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 61.15 SEVERSON PRODUCTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 134.63 140 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 491.60 SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 289.48 SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75 SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.76 STANDARD HEATING & A/C OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,160.00 STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,790.46 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 482.66 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 57.13 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 313.30 SURE STOP FLOOR SAFETY INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 500.00 TAKE & BAKE GENERAL SUPPLIES 60.00 TEATH, AMY PROGRAMMING 22.00 TEKTRONIX INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 828.00 TIMBER CREST CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,380.00 TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 322.01 TOFTNER, MARCIE OTHER REVENUE 35.00 TRANSMISSION SHOP INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 71.27 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS POSTAGE 69.93 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 43.23 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 115.00 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 41.11 WASTE MANAGEMENT- BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 149,723.51 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,241.53 WELCHLIN COMMUNICATION STRATEG PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,700.00 WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 173.18 YAMAMOTO, CHIE MISCELLANEOUS 7.00 ZALK STEEL & SUPPLY CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 133.13 ZEBEC OF NORTH AMERICA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 935.88 ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 15.98 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 52.70 289,612.51 June 2, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 141 EDINA FAMILY PHYSICIANS INJURY PAY 171.15 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER INJURY PAY 198.55 PDR HOPKINS INJURY PAY 1,956.43 SEDGEWICK MANAGED CARE INJURY PAY 9.50 2,335.63 June 2, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 2,760.23 2,760.23 June 2, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 ERICKSON, TONIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,241.00 I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,561.65 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,641.53 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00 JONES, TIM LICENSES/TAXES 30.00 KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET UNREALIZED REVENUE 57.05 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,749.00 MINN COMM OF REVENUE SEASON TICKETS 17,837.00 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,083.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,381.21 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 109.08 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,340.00 NORTH STAR TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 67.34 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 99,328.08 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 45,195.29 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,328.13 142 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 8,687.58 SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS- LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 29,567.86 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,363.46 237,515.96 143 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11a* Meeting of June 7, 1999 *11a. Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping – City Project No. 98-15 This report considers rejecting all bids received for the construction of two (2) City entrance entry signs and site landscaping. Recommended Action: Motion to reject all bids and readvertise for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping. Background: Proposals were received on May 25, 1999, for the construction of two (2) entry signs and site landscaping. The sign locations are at Louisiana Avenue and I-394 and at Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 5, and 12, 1999 and in the Construction Bulletin on April 30, May 7, and 14, 1999. A total of three (3) companies submitted bids. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid Amount Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 155,223.75* Lakeland Nurseries, Inc. $ 169,782.00 Jay Brothers, Inc. $ 187,394.40 Engineer’s Estimate $ 156,000.00 * Denotes Engineer’s correction upon extension Upon analysis of the bids it was noted that the low bidder left one (1) line item blank. The line item was mobilization. In reviewing the bids with the City Attorney it was determined that the low bid is considered to be an incomplete bid and must be rejected. In reviewing the other bids, it was noted that the large disparity in bids is not in the City’s best interest and it is recommended the City Council reject all bids and authorize readvertising for this project. Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager