Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/06/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 21, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Sergeant Phil Stuemke Farewell b. Swearing In Ceremony for Sue Santa 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of June 7, 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 2 6. Public Hearing 6a. Public Hearing and First Reading of an ordinance to change the zoning designation from “C-2” Commercial to “R-C”, High Density Residential for property owned by Silvercrest Properties Case No. 99-11-Z 3601 Park Center Boulevard Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance to rezone the property from “C-2” to “R- C” and set second reading for July 6, 1999 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Resolution upholding and reversing , in part, the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals relating to the allowed height, size and use of an accessory structure located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue This resolution sets forth findings of fact regarding the zoning appeal for 4312 Coolidge Avenue, affirms the Board of Zoning Appeals on two interpretations and reversed on a the issue of height of the garage. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution. *8b. Community Notification Grant The City of St. Louis Park has been awarded a grant to reimburse the Police Department budget for expenses associated with the Community Notification of a Level III sex offender. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving grant agreement between the Community Notification Grant Program and the City of St Louis Park and authorize the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute this agreement. *8c. Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant The City of St. Louis Park has been awarded an overtime grant to fund a project directed at reducing the number of truant children and curfew violators in St. Louis Park. 3 Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving a grant agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the City of St. Louis Park and authorize the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute this agreement. *8d. Amendment to the Bassett Creek Watershed Joint Powers Agreement This action would agree to and approve a watershed boundary change in downtown Minneapolis. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing and directing amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Housing Authoriy Minutes of May 12, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Planning Commission minutes of May 19, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *c. Planning commission minutes of June 2, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *d. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s) 4 11. New Business 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments - None 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 5 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 7, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentation Mayor Jacobs presented a certificate of Appreciation to Finance Director, Kathleen “Mac” McBride, who had resigned to take the position of Business Administrator for the College of St. Katherine. Mr. Meyer also expressed his appreciation to Ms. McBride for her years of professional service. Mayor Jacobs also acknowledged that Peter Hobart School has been named a “Blue Ribbon School of Excellence”. Principal Frank Johnson was present and spoke about the award and the excellent staff and students at Peter Hobart School. Mayor Jacobs also pointed out that the only other school in the state to receive this high honor was the Minneapolis Jewish Day School, also located in St. Louis Park. 3. Roll Call Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Robert Young, Sue Sanger, Chris Nelson, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); Fire Chief (Mr. Gill); and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of May 17, 1999 With a minor correction, the minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda Motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Councilmember Nelson and seconded by Councilmember Sanger. Motion passed unanimously. 6 b. Agenda Motion to approve the regular agenda was made by Councilmember Sanger and seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer. Motion passed unanimously. *c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived the 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 Woodroast” at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to the issue he closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen at a future time. Motion to approve the intoxicating on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses was made by Councilmember Young and seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer. Motion passed 6-0. 6b. Public hearing on the transfer of an off-sale intoxicating liquor license at 8242 Minnetonka Boulevard from Summit Liquors to Texas-Tonka Liquors. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to the issue he closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen at a future time. Motion to approve the transfer of the off-sale liquor license was made by Councilmember Latz and seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 7a. Appeal of John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue, to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Brian Hoffman gave a brief overview of the item. He stated that the appeal was being made by a resident who was questioning building height of an accessory structure, the maximum square footage allowable for detached accessory structure and the type of permitted uses that can occur within an accessory structure. He stated that Mr. Mohler had met with staff to discuss his concerns and differences in how the Zoning Code is interpreted. Following that he made an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals and on April 22, the board heard the discussion and itstheir decision was to concur with staff’s interpretation in the three areas in questions. Mr. 7 Mohler is now bringing this appeal to the City Council so that Council can make a decision on how the zoning code needs to be interpreted and applied in these situations. He stated that the structure in question was at 4312 Coolidge and had been issued a permit in September of 1998, and that it has been under construction. Mr. Hoffman felt that when Mr. Mohler first came to the department, the communication that had occurred and the staff response to his concerns had not been up to the standards of the Department. He apologized for any inconvenience Mr. Mohler had experienced. Mr. Hoffman stated that though Council’s decision on the appeal may affect the structure in question, Council would be making a decision on how the Zoning Code is applied to all buildings within the City which are presently standing as well as buildings that will be constructed in the future. At staff’s first review of the plans there had been some inconsistencies and misunderstandings between the homeowner and staff. The City reviewed the plan and believed the roof height was in accordance with the zoning code. After neighbors pointed out their concerns, the plans were reviewed and it was realized that the building would actually be taller than allowable. A stop work order was issued and consultation with the homeowner and contractor was held. Staff also realized after construction began, that there was an error in regard to proximity to the lot boundary. That set-back requirement has now been met. Mr. Moore, Zoning Administrator, presented to Council an overview of how the zoning ordinance is interpreted by staff in regard to roof height. Mr. Moore stated that he believed the ordinance had been interpreted correctly by staff, and also stated that the City Attorney concurred with staff’s decision, and that the Board of Zoning Appeals had upheld the decision. Council asked questions regarding different scenarios of right of way frontage and how each would affect a building height measurement according to the ordinance. Mr. Moore explained the second interpretation appeal regarding the size of the accessory structure in relation to ground floor area ratio. He explained how that calculation had been done and said that he believed that the floor area ratio for the structure was in compliance with the zoning code. Mr. Moore also pointed out that the use of the accessory structure is also in question. He explained that there were no water or sewer utilities in the structure, and that precludes its use as a dwelling unit. He compared the use to that of a gazebo. Councilmember Nelson asked about discrepancies in measurements stated in reports presented at different meetings. Mr. Hoffman stated that the discrepancies were caused by using measurements taken from the building plans as opposed to those measurements taken from the actual structure after completion. He further stated that the height in the current report is that of the garage as constructed. The garage is not currently in conformance with the zoning code as it is interpreted, and staff will be working with the homeowner to bring it into compliance. Mayor Jacobs indicated that several records had been submitted by various parties and that those records would become part of the public record for this item. 8 John Miller, 4500 Park Glen Road, was present as legal representative for the Mohlers of 4313 Brook Ave S. He felt the history of this case was important and wanted to be sure all facets were covered in the event that the issue would move forward to another kind of judicial body. John Mohler, 4313 Brook Ave South, said that the building was directly behind his home. He felt the height of the structure violated their open space and privacy and would lower the value of their home. He described the building and said that several other homeowners were also opposed to the structure. He did not feel that the City’s oversight of the project plans and construction was adequate. He had experienced problems with obtaining copies of the plans, and with the City’s response to his concerns that the building was not being constructed in compliance with the City’s building requirements. In order to ensure that his interests will be served, he had retained the legal counsel of John Miller. Mr. Miller presented photographs of the structure for Council review. Mr. Miller had also had trouble obtaining the plans for the project, but did eventually receive a copy. On reviewing the plans he determined that staff had not correctly interpreted the ordinance with regard to building height. He met with staff and they again stated that the plans were in compliance with the ordinance. Upon further review, staff did realize that the allowable building height had indeed been miscalculated. Mr. Moore stated that he would work with the property owner to reduce the building height. Mr. Miller again reviewed the plans and found what he believed to be further problems with zoning code interpretation in regard to floor area ratio, use and set back requirements. In response to Mr. Miller’s concerns, Mr. Hoffman had offered to ask the City Attorney for an opinion on the interpretation. Mr. Miller also consulted Bill Thibault, a consultant well-versed in zoning code interpretation. Mr. Scott subsequently agreed with the City’s interpretation regarding building height, floor area ratio and use, but found that the set-back requirements had not been met. Mr. Miller stated that he believed the original plans had been lost or destroyed and that a second set had been submitted to the City for review. He also felt that the permit was void and therefore the construction on the building had been done without a permit. Court decisions have held that the owner is charged with constructive notice as to what requirements of an ordinance are and cannot rely on a permit given by an officer who did not have the authority to do so. Since, in his opinion, the plans had been approved in violation of the ordinance and had been approved by a building official without authority to approve non-conforming plans, then the permit was entirely void. Councilmember Nelson asked what would be the legal effect of constructing a building with a void permit. Mr. Miller cited Lawry v. Mankato as an example of building with a void permit. Mayor Jacobs asked for clarification on Councilmember Nelson’s question. Councilmember Nelson wanted to know if the building would need to be torn down. 9 Bill Thibault, 11712 Wayzata Blvd (business address), offered to speak to the use, size and height of the structure in question. Regarding use, he stated that when the plans had been submitted in September of 1998 it had been identified as a detached garage. The drawings, however, include the terms “office space and living” which he felt should have caused concern for staff because living space and office are not allowable uses in an accessory structure. Councilmember Nelson stated that the original request for living space was refused at the time the plans were reviewed. Mr. Thibault concurred with Mr. Miller that the permit was void at the time issued due to the fact that the plans had been approved by an official not authorized to approve a non-conforming structure. He felt the plans should have been revised prior to the permit being issued. Mr. Thibault also addressed the square footage issue. He felt the ordinance as written would not allow the square footage identified on the plan because the ordinance did not specify “ground” floor area, merely square footage. Councilmember Latz asked how 25% of the rear lot area had been interpreted and if it applied to ground area or area above the ground as well. Mr. Thibault stated that he felt the calculation should be made on total lot coverage. Councilmember Latz asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Thibault meant square footage covered rather than volume. Mr. Thibault said that he meant total square footage on any floor of a structure or 25%. Councilmember Latz asked how floor area ratio would be determined if someone built a 1/2 story only 4 feet high, would that also be considered in the calculation of floor area ratio. Mr. Thibault stated that it would affect the floor area ratio. City Attorney, Mr. Scott was asked to address the issue. He stated that there was another provision in the zoning ordinance that states the maximum size for all accessory structures that uses the language “ground floor area” of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25% of the area between the principal structure and the lot line. Councilmember Nelson felt that the zoning section clearly refers to ground floor area, but the section Mr. Thibault had presented was ambiguous. He assumed that if they are in conflict Council would be required to go with the most liberal interpretation. Mr. Scott said that was correct and that the ground floor area would be the measurement. If the 800 square foot limitation was read in conjunction with the 25% limitation, he felt it more sensible to consider ground floor area. In addition, ground floor area is specifically referenced in another code section. He also stated that in these cases, the applicant is given the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Thibault felt that the courts would prefer the most restrictive interpretation. In reference to the height, Mr. Thibault reviewed the ordinance language and how it could be interpreted to measure height. He felt that staff’s interpretation of methods for measuring height were in conflict with the language of the ordinance. He gave a detailed account of how the 10 building in question should be measured using the highest gable rather than the gable in the front of the building. He concluded that by all accounts, the building is 4 feet too high. Councilmember Brimeyer asked for clarification on Mr. Thibault’s measurements as they relate to the gables located on different sides of the building. Councilmember Brimeyer believed the measurement should be taken on the curb line or east side. Mr. Thibault replied that the curb side was the starting point of the measurement, but that the line should extend to the highest gable, whether or not the highest gable is located on the curb side. Mr. Miller addressed Councilmember Latz’s question about floor area saying that he believed the total square footage of a building is considered in the floor area ratio measurement. Councilmember Latz responded with a hypothetical of an unenclosed suspended storage area in a garage and asked if that space would be included in the calculation of floor area. Mr. Miller believed it would. Mr. Miller reviewed his client’s objections to the building height, size and use and stated that he believed staff’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance was in error and did not conform to zoning code definitions and specifications. He pointed out errors and inaccuracies in the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes and expressed his disappointment in not being given a chance to review the minutes to make corrections. He believed that corrections should be made in the event that the minutes would become part of the record in a court of law. He again stated that the building permit should not have been issued and stated that the Mohler’s objections were not to a garage, but to a garage that does not meet ordinance. He also pointed out that a petition had been submitted. Mayor Jacobs stated that the petition had been received and would be made part of the public record. Mr. Miller thanked Council for their consideration. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Scott about his interpretation of building height and if he agreed with staff’s interpretation or with the interpretation of Mr. Thibault. Mr. Scott responded that his interpretation of the ordinance language was that measurements should be taken on those portions of the structure having frontage on the public right of way. Councilmember Sanger asked how the ordinance would be interpreted in the case of a flat roof with equipment. Would the total height include equipment located at the back of the roof as well as the roof structure or only equipment located at the front of the roof. Mr. Scott stated that if there was a flat roof that measurement would be taken to the top of the equipment regardless of its location. Councilmember Sanger asked why that would be different than if there was a gable. Mr. Scott said that in this particular case, the garage is oriented toward the roadway and a gable roof fronts on the roadway. The City’s ordinance only regulates the front of a building which 11 faces the roadway. He suggested that Council may want the language clarified, but as it is currently written he felt staff had applied the ordinance appropriately. Councilmember Sanger asked if the back of the building could be of unlimited height using the language of this ordinance. Mr. Scott said that, conceivably, it could be. Councilmember Brimeyer found it an interesting result that he did not believe was intended when the ordinance was drafted. Councilmember Nelson asked a procedural question of what action is required of Council at this time. Mr. Scott suggested that if Council differs with the Board of Zoning Appeals decision on any one of the three points, the appropriate motion would be to direct staff to prepare findings outlining Council’s rationale for disagreeing with any one of those decisions for consideration at the next regular meeting of Council. Councilmember Sanger spoke to the intent of the original drafters of the ordinance and she did not recall any discussion which would have led her to believe two-story garages would be permitted in the City. She likened the structure to a carriage house rather than a garage and did not believe there were provisions in any of St. Louis Park’s ordinances allowing for structures of that nature. Councilmember Nelson stated for the record that he did not believe there was bad faith on the part of the home-owner and felt they had done all they could to comply with the ordinance. He also believed that staff had acted in good faith. He did feel, however, that Mr. Thibault had swayed Councilmember Nelson’s opinion with his common sense interpretation. He felt that the Board of Zoning Appeals decisions on other aspects, namely, use and ground area ratio were correct, but disagreed with their interpretation of building height. Councilmember Nelson moved to direct staff to draft findings on calculation of building height limitations consistent with Mr. Thibault’s interpretation. Motion seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer. Mr. Scott commented that Council would be addressing whether or not staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals had properly applied the ordinance to this particular structure, not building height in general. Councilmember Nelson asked what the effect on this particular structure would be. Mr. Scott stated that even using the interpretation of staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals, this particular building is still too high and that the issue would be addressed. Councilmember Nelson asked what the next steps would be. Mr. Hoffman stated that orders would be written to the property owner stating that the building is not in conformance. At that point there would be two options; apply for a variance, or modify the structure in some way as to lower overall height. Depending on Council’s decision tonight, the extent of those modifications would most likely change. 12 Councilmember Nelson modified his motion to the extent that it is specific to this building and would not be a general statement. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the modification to the motion was acceptable. Councilmember Brimeyer wanted to look at the ordinance in the near future to clarify language. Councilmember Latz asked for clarifications about staff’s measurements and how it may affect the issue of unlimited height at the back of a building. Mr. Hoffman spoke about different roof configurations and how height could be measured on each. Councilmember Latz shared the belief that the measurement should be taken from the highest gable and disagreed with the interpretation of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Councilmember Latz stated and Mr. Scott concurred that if the permit was inappropriately approved based on drawings that identified living space, but staff had corrected the owner and informed him that the use was not allowed, that the correction would remedy any error in the original approval. Mr. Scott felt the records should be corrected so that a future buyer of the property would not believe that the space could be used as living area. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Scott to comment on the validity of the permit and if the permit was indeed considered void since its issuance. Mr. Scott stated that if a building permit is issued by mistake and that mistake is subsequently discovered, that the City is not prevented from correctly enforcing the ordinance. He felt the issue is whether the City can enforce its ordinance in a court of law. District Court Judges sometimes have different interpretations on these issues. Councilmember Young agreed that the use and ground floor are not issues, but felt the height was interpreted correctly by staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals even if that interpretation was not the original intent of the drafters of the ordinance. He felt the best way to address the issue would be to support the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and begin working on re- drafting the ordinance to take care of any loop-holes which exist. Mayor Jacobs asked for clarification on the motion stating that the motion made was to uphold the decision with respect to use and floor area ratio and to direct staff to prepare a resolution reversing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals with respect to the height limitation. Councilmember Nelson said that that was correct. Mr. Scott cautioned the council that this action would only apply to this particular structure and that in the future Council would need to take separate action to revise the ordinance language. He also pointed out that if the language is ambiguous as it is applied to this particular structure, a court of law would give the benefit of the doubt to the property owner. He asked Council to consider the actual language rather than the intent of the ordinance. Councilmember Latz understands that if language is clear its intent is not questioned. Where there is ambiguity it is appropriate to look at intent. 13 Mr. Scott agreed in general on City ordinances, but in the area of zoning a different rule applies to interpretation of ambiguous passages. Motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Young opposed) 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. Resolution #99-70 Mayor Jacobs entered into the record a letter received May 13, 1999 from Mr. Jim Rocklin indicating his objection to acceptance of the application. Mike Dwayne, President of the MYAS was present. Councilmember Young asked what the organization does and what contributions they’ve made directly to St. Louis Park. Mr. Dwayne gave a description of services the MYAS delivers and specified some St. Louis Park organizations which directly benefit from the proceeds Councilmember Sanger asked what percentage of revenues directly benefited St. Louis Park activities. Mr. Dwayne did not have that information, but estimated approximately 20-25%. Councilmember Latz also was interested and hoped that the next time they come before Council they would bring pertinent financial information. Councilmember Nelson asked what discretion Council held in approving or disapproving the license. Mr. Scott said there was little discretion. Councilmember Nelson said that he would not support the growth of gambling and therefore would not be voting in favor of approval. Councilmember Latz pointed out that the Legislature had already acted to make gambling legal. Councilmember Young pointed out that Council had directed staff to prepare proposed changes to the ordinance. Councilmember Brimeyer also did not feel there was basis for denial and moved to approve. Seconded by Councilmember Latz. Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Jacobs also asked that the issue be taken up at study session. Motion passed 4-2 (Councilmember Young and Councilmember Nelson opposed) 8b. Resolution appointing Third Ward Councilmember Resolution #99-71 14 Councilmembers thanked all the applicants and commented on their qualifications. Mayor Jacobs asked their preferences those were stated to be as follows: Councilmember Latz Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Nelson Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Sanger Sue Santa Councilmember Brimeyer Sue Santa and Paul Ohmot Councilmember Young John Palmatier Mayor Jacobs Sue Santa Council was then asked to vote and those votes were cast as follows: Councilmember Brimeyer Sue Santa Councilmember Young John Palmatier Councilmember Latz Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Nelson Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Sanger Sue Santa Mayor Jacobs Sue Santa With no one receiving four votes, Mayor Jacobs again asked for votes to be cast. Councilmember Latz Sue Santa Councilmember Nelson Paul Ohmot Councilmember Sanger Sue Santa Councilmember Brimeyer Sue Santa Councilmember Young Paul Ohmot Mayor Jacobs Sue Santa Councilmember Nelson made a motion to adopt a resolution appointing Sue Santa to the office of Ward Three Councilmember effective as soon as possible. Motion seconded by Councilmember Latz. Motion passed unanimously. Candidates not chosen were encouraged to run for office in November. 8c. Ratification of an appointment to the position of Interim Director of Finance, and authorization of a contract with RHI Management Resources Mr. Meyer introduced Mr. John Brooks to the council. Councilmember Sanger moved to ratify the appointment of John Brooks to the position of Interim Director of Finance effective June 10, 1999 and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with RHI Management Resources for temporary financial professional services. Motion seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer. Motion passed unanimously. 8d. Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park 15 Resolution #99-72 Member of the friends of the Arts were present and Councilmembers expressed their appreciation to the group for their hard work in developing a Vision for the Arts. Councilmember Brimeyer moved to adopt a resolution of support for the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park. Motion seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 8e. Resolution approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan Resolution #99-73 Motion to adopt a resolution approving the revised Emergency preparedness plan was made by Councilmember Sanger and seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. *8f. Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement Resolution #99-74 By Consent, Council adopted 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. *8g. Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County Resolution #99-75 By consent, Council adopted a resolution entering into conditional use license agreement with Hennepin County for use of Electronic Proprietary Database 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Human Rights Commission Report of 1998 - By consent, Council accepted the report for filing *b. Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1999 - By consent, Council accepted the report for filing *c. Board of Zoning Appeals minutes of April 22, 1999 - By consent, Council accepted the report for filing *d. Housing Authority minutes of April 14, 1999 - By consent, Council accepted the report for filing 16 *e. Vendor Claim Report - By consent, Council accepted the report for filing 10. Unfinished Business a. Appointment of Board and Commission Members Councilmember Young moved to appoint Linda Trummer to the Police Civil Service Commission and also moved to reappoint Bryan Leary, also to the Police Civil Service Commission. Motion seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 11. New Business *11a. Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping – City Project No. 98-15 By consent, Council moved to reject all bids and readvertise for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping. 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments *a. Contract payments - By consent approved and authorized the following payment: Hardrives, Inc. $ 82,403.28 Construction of Excelsior Blvd/Phase 2 Contract No. 14-98 14. Communications 15. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 17 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of June 21, 1999 6a. Public Hearing and First Reading of an ordinance to change the zoning designation from “C-2” Commercial to “R-C”, High Density Residential for property owned by Silvercrest Properties Case No. 99-11-Z 3601 Park Center Boulevard Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance to rezone the property from “C-2” to “R- C” and set second reading for July 6, 1999 Current Zoning: C-2, Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: HR, High Density Residential, up to 75 units per acre under a Planned Unit Development or approved Redevelopment Plan Site Information: The site is an L-shaped parcel consisting of 2.18 acres, located at the southeast corner of Park Center Boulevard and 36th Street. The main portion of the site contains a 3 story, 33,000 square foot office building and surface parking. The southerly extension of the property contains an approximately 2,500 square foot bank building and drive-through which is currently occupied by Norwest Bank. Proposed Use of Property: Norwest Bank is planning to relocate its facilities to another location within Park Commons, at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue this year. The bank building and drive-through are required to be removed upon termination of the lease. The bank relocation will make way for expansion of the senior assisted living facility on the adjacent property, Parkwood Shores Assisted Living. A request for replatting and Planned Unit Development for this expansion is anticipated to be considered by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1999. The remainder of the subject parcel is proposed to remain as office use in the near future, and to eventually redevelop as high density housing. The existing office is permitted in the “R-C” District. Surrounding Properties: The two properties to the south are owned by the same owner, Silvercrest Properties, and contain 45 units of senior assisted living apartments and 207 units of senior high-rise apartments respectively. To the west across Park Center Boulevard lies a Target store. To the north across 36th Street is a Ford auto dealership, and to the east is Wolfe Park and 18 the City’s Rec Center. The property is generally located along the northern boundary of the Park Commons redevelopment area. Metropolitan Council: The Metropolitan Council is currently reviewing a major update to the Comprehensive Plan, which includes a consolidation of the two high density residential land use designations “R50” and “R75” to “RH,” High Density Residential. Planning Commission: On May 19, 1999, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning. Issues: • What uses are permitted in the R-C District? • Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Issues Analysis: What uses are permitted in the R-C District? The R-C zoning district is primarily intended for high density residential development up to 50 units per acre, or up to 75 units per acre in some areas. The following are permitted uses in the R-C district: 1. Rooming houses 2. State licensed residential facilities 3. Park and open space 4. Office in existence or having received preliminary office development approval by March 1, 1999 5. Transit stations The following uses are permitted with conditions in the R-C district (conditions not listed): 1. Adult day care 7. Libraries 2. Group day care/nursery school 8. Parks and recreation 3. Group home/non-statutory 9. Police/fire stations 4. Nursing home 10. Religious institutions 5. Community centers 11. Communications tower 6. Educational (academic) 12. Multiple family dwelling/cluster up to 50 units per acre The following uses are permitted under a Conditional Use Permit in the R-C district (conditions not listed): 19 1. Elderly housing 4. Hotel/motel 2. Hospital 5. Hostel 3. Public service structure The following uses are permitted under a Planned Unit Development in the R-C district: 1. Ground floor retail, service, office, and medical office in mixed use buildings that are predominantly residential The PUD process also permits residential development of densities of up to 75 units per acre as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing office development would continue as a permitted use under the R-C zoning. However, when redevelopment is proposed, the property would be required to be redeveloped for predominantly high density housing. New office development is no longer permitted in the R-C zone. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is proposed to be approved by the City Council on May 17, 1999 and in particular with the Park Commons redevelopment goals? The proposed rezoning would bring the zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation for this property of HR, High Density Residential. The rezoning is consistent with general goals of the Comprehensive Plan of creating additional housing within the City and higher density housing where appropriate. The Park Commons redevelopment plans include high density housing, up to 75 units per acre, on this site. A tower, similar in height to the existing Park Shores senior high-rise, is expected. However, multi-age housing will be encouraged to help meet the goal of providing a wide range of housing opportunities in this area. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from “C-2” to “R-C.” Attachments: • Location Map • Site map • Approved Comprehensive Plan land use designations for Park Commons Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 20 ORDINANCE NO.__________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: 3601 Park Center Boulevard: Lot 1, Block 2, Park Center, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except for the south 40.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Park Center, and the north 145.00 feet of the south 185.00 feet of the east 215.00 feet of said Lot 1. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council July 6, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 21 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of June 21, 1999 8a. Resolution upholding and reversing , in part, the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals relating to the allowed height, size and use of an accessory structure located at 4312 Coolidge Avenue This resolution sets forth findings of fact regarding the zoning appeal for 4312 Coolidge Avenue, affirms the Board of Zoning Appeals on two interpretations and reversed on a the issue of height of the garage. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution. Background: The City Council directed staff on June 7, 1999 to prepare a resolution setting forth its findings of fact and decision regarding the appeal of the interpretation of the zoning ordinance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The full background on the issue along with findings of fact and decision are included in the resolution and do not need to be repeated here. Attachments: Resolution Exhibit I (Diagram of garage height) Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 22 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b* Meeting of June 21, 1999 *8b. Community Notification Grant The City of St. Louis Park has been awarded a grant to reimburse the Police Department budget for expenses associated with the Community Notification of a Level III sex offender. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving grant agreement between the Community Notification Grant Program and the City of St Louis Park and authorize the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute this agreement. Background: The St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a grant in the amount of $2,500.00 from the Community Notification Grant Program, Minnesota Statute 239, Article 1, Section 7, Sub. 8. On January 20, 1999, the St. Louis Park Police Department, in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Corrections, conducted a Community Notification meeting for a Level III sex offender. Expenses associated with planning and conducting the notification meeting are being reimbursed through the Community Notification Grant Program. Attachments: Resolution approving grant agreement Letter from MN Dept. of Public Safety (on file in City Clerk’s office) Grant application (on file in City Clerk’s office) Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 23 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION GRANT PROGRAM AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a $2,500.00 grant from the Minnesota Community Notification Program for reimbursement of expenses associated with the Level III Sex Offender Community Notification meeting held on January 20, 1999, and WHEREAS, the State requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant agreement and authorizing its execution; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the community policing grant agreement and authorizes the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute the agreement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 21, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 24 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c* Meeting of June 21, 1999 *8c. Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant The City of St. Louis Park has been awarded an overtime grant to fund a project directed at reducing the number of truant children and curfew violators in St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving a grant agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the City of St. Louis Park and authorize the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute this agreement. Background: The St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a grant in the amount of $10,000.00 from the Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant Program, Minnesota Statute 299.A62. The grant will provide reimbursement for overtime wages and other expenses associated with a project focusing on truancy and curfew violations. The purpose of the project is to reduce the number of truancy and curfew violations that often lead juveniles to a lifetime cycle of unemployment, crime and jail. The police department will provide services to identify truant/curfew violators and possible environmental causes, and to find the most effective ways to prevent these violations from occurring. Attachments: Resolution approving grant agreement Letter from the MN Dept. of Public Safety (on file in City Clerk’s office) Grant application (on file in City Clerk’s office) Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 25 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 99 COPS OVERTIME GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a $10,000.00 grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant Program to provide funding for expenses associated with a project focusing on truancy and curfew violations, and WHEREAS, the State requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant agreement and authorizing its execution; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the 99 COPS Overtime Grant Agreement and authorizes the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute the agreement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 21, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 26 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d* Meeting of June 21, 1999 *8d. Amendment to the Bassett Creek Watershed Joint Powers Agreement This action would agree to and approve a watershed boundary change in downtown Minneapolis. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing and directing amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. Background: The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission is a Minnesota joint powers organization created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 and is the successor in interest to the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission and the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission by amendments to the joint powers agreement which originally formed the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission in 1968, as amended in 1984 and 1993. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (which, together with its predecessor organizations, is hereinafter referred to as “Bassett Creek WMO”) is a watershed management organization pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.205 to 103B.255 for the Bassett Creek watershed, which flows to the Mississippi River. The boundaries established by the joint powers agreement are delineated on a map of the watershed on file and of record with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. That part of the Bassett Creek watershed lying within the City of Minneapolis is shown on Attachment One to this Resolution. In the 1920s, an underground conduit was constructed to divert the surface water flowing from the Bassett Creek watershed under the highly developed area of Minneapolis to the Mississippi River. That tunnel (the “Old Tunnel”) was, and continues to be, owned and operated by the City of Minneapolis. Between 1976 and 1992, a project was undertaken to plan, design, construct and operate, among other things, a new tunnel (the “New Tunnel”) under the City of Minneapolis south of and roughly parallel to the Old Tunnel. This major flood control project was a cooperative effort of the cities, which were members of the Bassett Creek WMO, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Army. Most of the surface water draining from the Bassett Creek watershed was diverted to the New Tunnel, leaving a relatively small area of the watershed continuing to discharge through the Old Tunnel directly to the Mississippi River. The area of the Bassett Creek Watershed, which continues to flow through the Old Tunnel, is shown on Attachment One as the “Area Tributary to old Bassett Creek tunnel”. 27 In the design of the New Tunnel, it was determined that, in periods of extreme flooding, water from the Bassett Creek watershed which could not be accommodated by the New Tunnel would flow overland to the Old Tunnel. With this exception and the exception of the area described in the preceding paragraph, the waters of the Bassett Creek watershed now flow to the Mississippi River through the New Tunnel. A portion of the Bassett Creek watershed abuts the area under the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (hereinafter referred to as the “Middle Mississippi River WMO”), a joint powers organization and watershed management organization created and operated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 and Sections 103B.205 to 103B.255. The Middle Mississippi River WMO manages the local drainage area adjacent to the Mississippi for nearly its entire length through the City of Minneapolis. Prior to the diversion of waters from the Bassett Creek watershed to the New Tunnel, the upstream reaches of the Bassett Creek watershed were diverted to the Old Tunnel along with Minneapolis local drainage. Therefore, it was appropriate that the entire area tributary to the Old Tunnel should be included within the Bassett Creek watershed. However, now that the waters of the upper Bassett Creek watershed no longer flow into this tunnel along with the Minneapolis local drainage, it is more appropriate that that part of the Bassett Creek watershed which flows to the Old Tunnel be managed by the Middle Mississippi River WMO along with the other subwatersheds making up the Minneapolis local drainage area. For this reason, and to facilitate financing of planned local public improvements in the area tributary to the Old Tunnel, the City of Minneapolis has requested that the area tributary to the Old Tunnel currently under the jurisdiction of the Bassett Creek WMO be transferred, by a boundary change, to the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi River WMO (please see the attached map). Legal counsel for the Bassett Creek WMO has reviewed this request and developed a procedure to be utilized in this case. This procedure is detailed in the attached memorandum dated February 16, 1999. The request of Minneapolis is that the area tributary to the Old Tunnel (purple) be transferred to the Middle Mississippi River WMO. The transfer of this area would isolate a small part of the Bassett Creek watershed which is tributary to the New Tunnel and leave it surrounded by area under the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi River WMO. The Bassett Creek Commissioners have concluded that this isolated area (medium green), consisting of approximately 67 areas, and depicted on Attachment One as the “Area tributary to New Tunnel within Bassett Creek WMO” should also be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi River WMO. Transfer of this area to the Middle Mississippi River WMO would mean that runoff to the New Tunnel would include runoff coming from land previously in the Bassett Creek watershed over which the Bassett Creek WMO would not have control. There is also currently an area within the Middle Mississippi River WMO boundaries that drains to the New Tunnel but that is not under the jurisdiction of the Bassett Creek WMO. This area (dark green), which is approximately 106 acres in size, is labeled on Attachment One as the “Area tributary to New Tunnel within MMRWMO”. The Bassett Creek WMO has determined that if the boundary is to be changed, it is appropriate than an agreement be reached between Minneapolis, the Bassett Creek WMO and 28 the Middle Mississippi River WMO which addresses, among other things, the management of storm water within this area over which the Bassett Creek WMO will not have jurisdiction but which contributes storm water that could affect the adequacy of Bassett Creek systems to manage the volume of storm water or impair water quality for which Bassett Creek WMO could have responsibility or liability. Negotiations for such an agreement are currently in progress. The comments of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources on the proposed boundary change will be solicited pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.211, Subd. 2 and duly considered by the parties. All members of both the Bassett Creek WMO and Middle Mississippi River WMO must authorize the boundary change by duly approved resolutions of their city councils before it can become effective. The Bassett Creek WMO Commission has determined that the above described boundary change is reasonable, prudent and in the best interests of the public, subject to final approval of an agreement relating to issues described above by the Bassett Creek WMO, the Middle Mississippi River WMO and the City of Minneapolis. Impacts: The Joint Powers Agreement of the Bassett Creek WMO requires a budget and allocation of expenses among member cities. The assessments to member cities for the past three (3) years budgets have been $220,000 annually. St. Louis Park’s assessment has been approximately $8,600 annually. Assessments are based 50% on land area and 50% on valuation prorated amongst the member cities. This boundary change would change those values slightly with the next impact being to increase St. Louis Parks’s annual assessment approximately $400 based on a total watershed assessment of $220,000. Attachments: Procedure Resolution Map Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 29 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City is a party to the joint powers agreement which formed the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (the “Commission”) is the joint powers organization created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 to act as the watershed management organization pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 103B.205 to 103B.255 for the Bassett Creek Watershed; and WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Watershed is defined in Section III, Subdivision 6 of the Agreements as “. . . the area continued within a line drawn around the extremities of all terrain whose surface drainage is tributary to Bassett Creek and within the mapped areas delineated on the map filed with the Board of Water and Soil Resources originally filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 473.877, subd. 2 and as now amended by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.”; and WHEREAS, a portion of the City of Minneapolis lies within the Bassett Creek Watershed; and WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis is a party to the Agreement and a member of the Commission; and WHEREAS, a portion of the boundary of the Bassett Creek Watershed abuts the boundary of the Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (the “Middle Mississippi WMO”); and WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis, which is also a member of the Middle Mississippi WMO, has requested that the boundary line be changed between the Bassett Creek Watershed and the Middle Mississippi Watershed to relocate an area of the City of Minneapolis from the jurisdiction of the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission to the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi WMO; and WHEREAS, the requested boundary change requires the approval of all of the members of both the Commission and the Middle Mississippi WMO and the amendment of the joint powers agreements creating each organization; and WHEREAS, the Commission has recommended the approval of the requested boundary change pursuant to and in accordance with a proposed agreement entitled Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Boundary Change, between the Commission, the Middle Mississippi WMO, and the City of Minneapolis (the “Boundary Change Agreement”), a copy of which has been provided to and reviewed by the City Council; and 30 WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed boundary change, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, is reasonable, prudent and in the best interest of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Agreement is amended to change the boundary of the Bassett Creek Watershed on the following conditions: a) that the commission determines after consideration of the comments on the boundary change by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, that the boundary change should proceed; and b) that the Boundary Change Agreement is approved and executed in substantially the form submitted to the City by the Commission; and c) that the change in boundary is substantially as shown on the map attached to the Boundary Change Agreement; and d) that certified copies of resolutions approving the boundary change adopted by the city council of all cities in the Commission have been filed with the Chair of the Commission; and e) that effective approval of the boundary change by the city councils of all members of the Middle Mississippi WMO has been secured and evidence of such approval has been filed with the Chair of the Commission; and f) that following the occurrence of all of the foregoing, an amended map of the Bassett Creek Watershed and of the Middle Mississippi Watershed is jointly filed with the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, whereupon the boundary change will be effective. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 21, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 31 MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 12, 1999 - 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg, Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: Walter Hartman STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Joanna Brownstein, Tom Harmening, Nancy Sells, Cindy Stromberg OTHERS PRESENT: Carl Lidstrom, Professional Risk Management Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, City of St. Louis Park Barb McCormick, Project Pride for Living Lisa Kugler, Project Pride for Living Sherry Plice, Project Pride for Living 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1999 Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the minutes of April 14, 1999. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. Insurance - Umbrella Coverage and Tenant Discrimination Coverage Mr. Harmening said that Carl Lidstrom, the Authority's risk consultant, was present to answer questions regarding the need for an umbrella policy and tenant discrimination liability coverage. 32 Mr. Lidstrom said that he reviewed the policy and his conclusion is that the umbrella policy does not provide discrimination coverage. He explained that he asked the Authority's agent for a quotation for tenant discrimination liability insurance. Mr. Lidstrom reported that he and Ms. Anderson also had discussions with the City's insurance agent to determine what kind of coverage would be available under the public officials errors and omissions policy that the City purchases. They learned that the public officials liability policy has no discrimination exclusion, that the policy the City purchases has a limit of $750,000, that there is a deductible of $50,000 per claim with a maximum annual aggregate deductible of $150,000. Once the $750,000 aggregate is met each additional claim would have a $1,000 deductible. The Authority does then have some discrimination liability coverage but it is coming through the City and the public officials liability policy. Commission Gavzy asked Mr. Lidstrom for his recommendation about changing or adding coverage. Mr. Lidstrom responded that he believes the tenant discrimination quote he received is extremely narrow in scope. He feels that purchasing additional insurance reduces capital that is available to perform the agency's mission, but he believes it is a decision for the policy makers to determine. Commissioner Courtney asked what is covered by the umbrella policy. Mr. Lidstrom responded that it covers bodily injury, property damage and personal injury claims brought by third parties against the Authority. He explained that the umbrella policy increases the amount of money available under the primary liability insurance policy and creates a larger source of money to pay those claims. Commissioner Gavzy said it seemed as though the board did not want to make any changes or additions to the policy. Commissioners agreed. Mr. Harmening suggested that next fall before requesting bids on insurance coverage, staff will discuss specifications with the board. b. Park Commons Mr. Harmening introduced Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, City of St. Louis Park and the Park Commons Project Manager. Ms. Jeremiah provided an overview of the status of the Park Commons Phase I Project. She said that she understands that the board has an interest in speaking directly to the rental housing developer for this project at which time there should be further refinements regarding the housing mix. Ms. Jeremiah said that Avalon Bay Communities has been engaged by the City to work on the Master Plan which has been through several renditions. She said the Plan received approval from the Planning 33 Commission recently and went before a study session of the City Council on May 10. Ms. Jeremiah reported that the City Council indicated that they would like to see a bit more work on the housing mix. She said that basically the Plan includes a number of mixed use buildings including retail, service, restaurant, office and housing. A small percentage of the apartments would be income assisted. Ms. Jeremiah commented that one of the features that is being retained from the community design workshop held in 1996 is the idea of a town green connection between Excelsior Boulevard and Wolfe Park which provides a great amenity for all the different uses in the project. Commissioner Gavzy asked how much assistance is being provided by the City. Ms. Jeremiah responded that currently it is estimated that City assistance will be 30-35% of the overall project costs estimated at about $130 million. The City's investment would fund site preparation, all of the public roadways and infrastructure, town green and streetscape improvements, and parking structures. Commissioner Gavzy asked about plans for Phase II. Ms. Jeremiah responded that it is hoped the Phase I development will create a catalyst for more private redevelopment investment on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. and western Excelsior Blvd. Commissioner Gavzy asked about design controls in the project. Ms. Jeremiah responded that controls have been underway ever since the community design charrette was held in 1996. That process included some general redesign guidelines for redevelopment of the entire area and many of those have recently been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. There was a discussion about assisted housing units in the project. Ms. Jeremiah and Ms. Brownstein said that 18 assisted units are being proposed. Ms. Brownstein said that further analysis will include Hollman policies, other funding sources, and physical structure issues such as bedroom size. Commissioner Gavzy asked about ownership and the Authority's role with the assisted units. Ms. Brownstein responded that it is anticipated that the developer would both own and manage the units. There would be a very close working relationship between the Avalon Bay property management staff and the Authority. Ms. Brownstein suggested that the Authority's role might include maintaining a waiting list, recertifications and inspections. 34 Commissioner Gavzy commented on the architectural design of a building at Monterey Ave. and Excelsior Blvd. He also asked about a pedestrian bridge across Excelsior Blvd. Ms. Jeremiah responded that there are no plans for a dedicated pedestrian bridge but there is a plan to substantially improve the environment for pedestrians and bikers. c. Review of Louisiana Court HOME Proposal Mr. Harmening reviewed the proposed project which could involve a partnership between Project Pride for Living (PPL), Perspectives and the Authority. He explained that the presentation would be on the potential use of Hollman funds for assisted housing units which could involve the Authority. Mr. Harmening said that the project is currently in the conceptual stage. He reported that PPL did receive $300,000 in HOME funds to help facilitate the project Barb McCormick, Director of Housing and Development for PPL provided background on the agency. She explained that PPL became interested in Louisiana Court when PPL was allocated 36 Hollman units. Ms. McCormick said that the relationship with Perspectives has been a very interesting component and Perspectives will help in designing community building programs and support services. Lisa Kugler, development consultant with PPL, showed drawings of the proposed project. Mr. Harmening said that staff will be looking at the financial aspects of this project and what the City's role might be. Commissioner Gothberg requested clarification on social services which would be provided. Ms. McCormick said that PPL currently offers social services to a resident population in Minneapolis and St. Paul, including self-sufficiency offices. She said that careful consideration will be given as to what services Perspectives is prepared to offer and what services this particular development is going to need. Ms. McCormick said that Perspectives and PPL do provide considerable case management for women and children. She suggested that it may be more efficient for Perspectives to offer that service to residents because they are based in St. Louis Park and are familiar with the structure and systems in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Gothberg commented that there are a number of social service agencies based in St. Louis Park that would be more than eager to look at providing social services in the Louisiana Court neighborhood. She said that the two schools in the area work with social workers from Jewish Family and 35 Children's Services who follow families from pre-school into junior high. She encouraged PPL to consider using other agencies to provide social services. Ms. Kugler said that she and Ms. Brownstein have talked about working on some senior services. Ms. Kugler suggested creating a partnership similar to the Meadowbrook Collaborative. Commissioners Gavzy and Courtney asked for clarification on the use of tax credits. Ms. McCormick and Ms. Kugler responded that even as a non-profit, PPL would be the general partner of a limited partnership and would sell the credits. Ms. McCormick said that PPL has three other limited partnerships. Ms. McCormick explained the two ways of being allowed to claim the credits: 1) an allocation through the Housing Finance Agency which is a highly competitive process; 2) tax credits through bond issuance. Commissioner Gavzy inquired about the Authority's role in the project. Ms. Brownstein said staff has been assuming that the role is directly affiliated with Hollman units though there may be some opportunities for a broader role. She explained that it is expected that the direct financial link would be through the ACC. There are questions about involvement in development as well as long term operation and management. Ms. Brownstein said that in preliminary discussions it seems the model is similar to that of Park Commons where the owner would serve as the main property manager. Responsibility for procedures such as waiting list, recertifications and inspections will need to be worked out. Commissioner Gavzy asked if the Hollman units would be scattered throughout the project. Ms. Kugler said that the assumption is not only that they are scattered but also that they float or are a "moving" unit rather than a physical unit. She added that MPHA's desire for Hollman units at this point is for two bedroom units. Commissioner Gavzy asked if MHOP units would count towards the Authority reaching a total of 250 units. Ms. Brownstein said the units would be part of the ACC, which means that they would be counted as part of the Authority's total number of public housing units. She said this is important for board and staff to consider as the difference between 12 units and 48 units is significant regarding resources. Commissioner Gavzy asked about plans for managing the property. 36 Sherry Plice, Director of Property Management for PPL, introduced herself. She said that over the past two years PPL has been involved in a restructuring of the property management division and has been involved in a wide variety of property management training. She believes the project will have an on-site property manager though it is yet to be seen whether or not it can financially support a full- time maintenance person. She said possibilities include having a leasing manager on site, a maintenance person on site, or one or two floating maintenance staff on site. Commissioner Gavzy said he is enthused about the project and looks forward to updates on it. He inquired about the timeline. Ms. McCormick and Ms. Kugler said it might be early 2000. Ms. Stromberg asked if the project would be 12 2-bedroom units. Ms. Kugler said that is what is being proposed as MPHA can't be very receptive to anything but 2-bedroom units at this point. Ms. Stromberg asked if the waiting list would be a 3/4 - 1/4 split (Hollman - St. Louis Park) meaning at any given time four of the units would be open to people on St. Louis Park's waiting list. Ms. Kugler said that was true. She added that for a certain period of time units would have to be marketed through the MPHA list. If no one comes forward as qualified, those units would go to people on the St. Louis Park waiting list. Ms. Stromberg expressed concern about St. Louis Park not currently having a 2-bedroom public housing waiting list. She also expressed concern about creating a large list for four units. Ms. Kugler said that it is an extremely difficult procedure to take applicants off from a Section 8 waiting list but she explained that there may be a way of working with the Met Council on the issue of waiting lists as PPL did with their New Hope project. Ms. Brownstein said that the Housing Authority staff, Hollman staff, and PPL staff need to discuss these issues. She said that to the extent that the Authority might have 12 Hollman units in Park Commons and 12-48 in Louisiana Court, it will be necessary to discuss the impact on resources. d. Rehabilitation Programs Update Ms. Brownstein said the report reviewed the four strategy areas previously presented to the HA with current status for implementing the strategies. Ms. Brownstein said that as the report indicates, June and July will be the months for all of the initiatives to be implemented. She said a decision has been made to have Hennepin County operate the CDBG program on our behalf. 37 Ms. Brownstein explained that in the interest buy down program, there will be two lenders: Center for Energy & Environment and Norwest Bank. Basically the City is going to buy down the interest rates from 8% to 6%, making it a very competitive product in the market place. If people already qualify for the 6%, there is no investment on the City's part. The interest rate varies with income. Ms. Brownstein said that the Community Fix-up Fund will be targeted in a different way. Staff had talked about looking at houses built before 1960 and now that an extensive analysis has been done, it has been determined that 1955 is a more appropriate year. Ms. Brownstein reported that the application to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for establishing a program to provide financing for improvements needed to resolve code violations was not funded. Ms. Brownstein and Mr. Harmening will be meeting with the Director of Inspections about whether to replace that money with other City funds. Ms. Brownstein explained that there is a lot of enthusiasm in the Inspections Department and the City Council for this kind of initiative. Staff may be coming back to the Authority about doing this program with a different mix of funding sources. e. Home Renewal Program - Sale of Lots to Builders Ms. Brownstein reported that a special meeting to authorize execution of development agreements will not be necessary. Ms. Brownstein said that a staff committee met to make recommendations regarding the developers for 3405 Rhode Island Ave. S. and 2808 Georgia Ave. S. The staff committee made the decision to offer the 3405 Rhode Island Ave. property to Al Stobbe Homes and the 2808 Georgia Ave. S. lot to Crown Builders/Initial Investments. f. Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) Resolution No. 461 Ms. Anderson explained that the May 31 HUD deadline is posing some challenges as the year-end statements will not arrive from the fee accountant by that time. Information from those statements is used in completing two of the indicators. Ms. Anderson explained two actions the Authority could choose regarding the submission of materials. Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to execute Form 50072 when it is completed for submission to HUD and request that Resolution 461 be brought back to its June meeting for adoption with the added language in Item 3, "ratifying and affirming the signatures." Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on 38 a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Row voting in favor. (Note: Commissioner Gothberg left the meeting at 6:05 p.m.) 39 g. Authorize Execution of TOP Grant Agreement Ms. Anderson said that two questions regarding insurance have come up on pages two and five. Ms. Anderson believes HUD may not require the Hamilton House Club to carry insurance since there wouldn't be a liability as the Authority controls all the funds. Ms.Anderson spoke with Carl Lidstrom, the Authority's risk consultant about this. Mr. Lidstrom is quite certain that there is no issue with adding the Hamilton House Club to the Authority policy at no charge. Commissioner Courtney said that she questions the Authority signing as contract administrator. She commented that the first paragraph states that the agreement is between the grantee (club) and HUD. She said she doesn't see any obligations of the contract administrator within the document so she doesn't understand why the Authority is signing it. Ms. Anderson said she also questioned the signature of the Authority as contract administrator. She said that the Authority did sign the Memorandum of Understanding, and it is required that the Authority sign the Technical Assistance Grant Agreement. Commissioner Gavzy said that it is clear that the grantee is the club, not the Authority. Commissioner Courtney noted a question on No. 6, page two regarding hiring an individual consultant for "this purpose." She is not sure what is meant by "this purpose" and she asked if the definition of an individual consultant includes the coordinator who is being hired and if so, does that coordinator's salary fall within these limits? Ms. Anderson said that as she understands it, it does include the part-time Service Coordinator. There was a discussion about when the agreement needs to be approved. Ms. Anderson said that nothing can proceed until the agreement is signed, but that if the board isn't comfortable with the agreement, it could wait until the June meeting. Mr. Harmening said the Authority attorney could review the agreement prior to the meeting. Commissioner Courtney said she prefers waiting until the June meeting for approval. Staff agreed to bring the agreement back to the June meeting. 40 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 99-5 Commissioner Courtney moved approval of Claims List No. 99-5 in the amount of $119,986.59. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Row voting in favor. b. Communications (1) Monthly Report for May, 1999 The report was accepted and filed. (2) Revenue Recapture Update The report was accepted and filed. (3) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House Update Ms. Anderson reported on a reasonable accommodation request which was requested following a lease termination action. (4) Update on Staff Hires Mr. Harmening reported that he has made an offer to a Housing Supervisor applicant. Mr. Harmening said that the Housing Secretary position has closed and twenty applications have been received. He anticipates that the Housing Supervisor will be involved in the hiring of the Housing Secretary. (5) Accounting Software Mr. Harmening said that Ms. Anderson and Ms. Rinta will be receiving training on the software in late May. Installation is complete and the data base is beginning to be built. He anticipates that by July the transition to the City accountant will be in place. The agreement with the City for accounting services will be presented at the June meeting. 41 8. Adjournment Commissioner Courtney moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Row voting in favor. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Walter Hartman Secretary 42 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian (arrived 7:05 p.m.), Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Garelick STAFF PRESENT: Sacha Peterson, Janice Loftus 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Morris called the meeting to order at u:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of May 5, 1999 Mr. Gothberg moved approval of the minutes of May 5, 1999. The motion passed 3-0-2 with Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor and Bissonnette and Carver abstaining. 3. Hearings: None 4. Old Business: 5. New Business: A. Consent Agenda B. Other New Business i. Case No. 99-11-Z -- Request of Silvercrest Management to change the zoning from C-2 General Commercial to R-C Multi Family Residence for property located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented the staff report and concluded with a staff recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning change from C-2 General Commercial to R-C Multi Family Residence. Elizabeth Cornelius, representing Silvercrest Management, stated that she is present to answer any questions. Chair Morris stated that the Commission has seen the long range plans for this site in the past and is familiar with the proposed development which is a welcome change to the area. There being no discussion, Chair Morris asked for a motion. 43 Ms. Bissonnette moved that the Commission recommend changing the zoning from C-2 Commercial to R-C High Density Residential and motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Gothberg, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - May 17, 1999 B. Other - None 7. Miscellaneous A. Memo from Janet Jeremiah - Park Commons Phase One Plans Ms. Velick stated she is pleased that the City Council is in favor of more owner occupied housing rather than rental. She said she is bringing this forward because she is confused with the proposed higher number of rental units on the plan given to the City Council and wonders where her misconception comes from. When the Commission reviewed earlier plans, they did talk about home ownership and condos for move up housing. She does not recall any meetings where it was discussed as only being rental. She asked if other Commissioners remember that discussion. Chair Morris asked if Ms. Velick if she is referring specifically to the townhome sites. Ms. Velick stated that she remembers that the townhome sites would be owner occupied for move-up housing. Chair Morris stated he recollects that the townhomes were to be owner occupied and the predominant rental would be the second floor mixed use and one portion by the Wolfe Park amphitheater. A discussion followed and other Commissioners concurred with Chair Morris’ comments on his understanding of owner occupied and rental units. It is the consensus of the Commission that they expect and want predominantly owner occupied housing. Mr. Carver stated that in order for condos to be feasible there needs to be a market. We cannot just create condos because someone is not going to buy a condo between two rentals. The Commission asked staff for the following clarifications: • What was presented to the Commission previously and what was recently presented to City Council • Location of owner occupied and rental units on the plan 44 • Breakdown on number of owner occupied and rental units • Estimate of what the market range would be B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Updated Pages for RC Zoning District C. Hypothetical Case Study - Suburban Rezoning D. Variances submitted with CUP/PUD Applications The Secretary advised the Commission that Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, is taking a report to an upcoming City Council Study Session for discussion on the option of the Planning Commission considering variance requests submitted to the City along with CUP or PUD applications. 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary 45 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Sally Velick STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Sacha Peterson, 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 May 19, 1999 Ms. Bissonnette moved approval of the minutes of May 19, 1999 and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business: A. Consent Agenda: None B. Other New Business i. Case No. 99-10-VAC -- Request of Karen and Dan Vetsch to vacate a portion of a utility easement for property located at 2902 Flag Avenue Commissioners Carver and Timian arrived. Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented the staff report. She stated that staff had received a letter from an abutting property owner objecting to the request and that letter was included in the Commissioners’ agenda packets. She stated that other departments and the utility companies have reviewed the vacation request and have no objections. In conclusion, she stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of vacating the utility easement subject to a condition that final approval be contingent upon the property owner granting a two foot utility easement along the southerly property line. 46 Chair Morris asked, if we do not vacate the southerly two feet, is there no need to request another easement? If we just vacate the northerly 18 feet, we would still retain the two foot easement and not need a conveyance. He stated he is not certain if this is a watermain easement. Ms. Peterson stated that the public works department would like the twenty foot easement vacated and the two foot easement instead. It may be because of the type of easement. Mr. Carver stated the attachment to the report refers to a public trailway and asked if the easement request has any affect on the trail in this area. Ms. Peterson stated that the trail easement is across the back portion of the property and the vacation itself does not affect the trailway. She said it is her understanding that the owner intends to develop this lot regardless of whether or not the vacation is granted. If the lot is developed, there is a very informal trail that does run through this property and she did get a call from a neighbor who is concerned about that trail. The Flag Avenue right-of-way extends all the way to the railroad tracks and the trail leads from the Flag Avenue cul-de-sac up to the railroad tracks. The Park and Recreation Department may want to discuss the possibility of reinstituting the trail onto the right-of-way. The request before the Commission does not affect the easement for the public trail. Chair Morris said the public trail easement is to the northerly side and he asked if he is hearing that, when we vacated the street, there is a public trail in the 40 foot previous right-of-way. Ms. Peterson stated that the public trail easement is on the northerly part of the lot, but there is no trail there currently. The portion of easement that is proposed to be vacated used to be a public street right-of-way. Chair Morris said that the trail right-of-way noted on the map to the north end of the property, where it says permanent easement for public trail, is not affected by this vacation request. Mr. Garelick referred to the letter from Mr. Whipps and asked what the reference to the trees is about. Ms. Peterson referred the question to the property owner. The lot is fairly wooded to the northerly part so granting the easement may enable the applicant to avoid cutting some trees but that depends on where they choose to build on the site. Dan Vetsch, the applicant, stated taking any trees down is news to him. He said he would answer any questions of the Commissioners. 47 Chair Morris stated that the land from his investigation of the public record is under purchase from the Hennepin County Tax Forfeited Land Department which is State property. The purchase contract has not been completed. If the City goes ahead with the vacation, staff needs to determine that the proper agency is granting the easement. He asked if the vacation would be granted before the easement is given to the City or is it going to be a condition of approval. Ms. Peterson stated that the vacation would become final upon granting of the easement. The Council would approve the vacation with a condition that granting of the vacation is conditioned upon granting of the easement. Chair Morris stated that it has been held with both the State Attorney General and through his knowledge with the City of Minneapolis Attorney that you cannot condition vacation actions upon another condition. Once a vacation is granted, it is permanent. If the party never comes back and fulfills the condition placed on the vacation, it becomes a civil matter. In Minneapolis they require the easement in hand prior to Council approval. Ms. Peterson stated she would ask the City Attorney for a clarification. Mr. Gothberg moved that the Commission recommend approval of the vacation subject to the condition in the staff report and further investigation of Chair Morris’ points. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor. ii. Case No. 99-3-ZA -- Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - MX Ordinance and associated sections Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. She said there are very few properties guided for future rezoning to this Mixed Use District. These include certain portions of the Phase I Park Commons development areas: a property just south of the Park Commons area across Excelsior Boulevard (the Amoco property); one property that includes the Wayside House and Park Nicollet’s surface parking lot just west of Wolfe Park; and property further east on the northwest corner of Excelsior Blvd and France. Ms. Jeremiah then reviewed the proposed amendments to the “M-X” District, which are intended to improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and better implement the goals for these areas. Ms. Jeremiah concluded her presentation with a recommendation that the Commission recommend approval of the amendments to the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code. In answer to a question from Mr. Timian on how soon the Amoco station would have to leave, Ms. Jeremiah stated they would not have to leave. If they are rezoned to “M-X”, the use would become existing nonconforming. Staff is not 48 recommending a rezoning of the property at this time. When the rezoning occurs, there would be a public hearing process and residents within 350 feet would be notified. The only issue with becoming a nonconforming use would be if something happened to the station, they would not be able to rebuild. Also, they would not have the ability for any major changes to the building. Mr. Timian asked the size of the Al’s site and how the parcel may be developed. Ms. Jeremiah said the site is quite small, but the adjacent dry cleaning site is also included. She said she thinks that the parcel reguided to “MX” between the corner and the motel is approximately 4 acres. Ms. Jeremiah said any proposed development may contain commercial neighborhood services, such as a dry cleaner, bar with a restaurant and townhomes. Mr. Gothberg stated he has some concern with the wording relative to usable open space in that some developer could stretch the definition of “accessible open space”. He referenced D4a “Accessible, usable open space on land within 600 feet of all buildings within the development. Such open space must be protected by covenants” etc.” He said one of his concerns is if Wolfe Park was on the south side of Excelsior Blvd and Town Center was being developed, he would not consider the park really usable space for the development. Another example, is the Park Tavern across the street from a major park open area. He has concerns with the wording on defining accessible open space. Ms. Jeremiah stated those are legitimate concerns and clarified that the provision is to potentially get a reduction in an open space requirement from 12% to 8% and a developer would have to provide some on-site open space. The other issue is that it is at the sole discretion of the City Council and not an automatically granted deviation from the normal requirement. In reality, 600 feet could potentially be across a road, and if the Commission is not comfortable with that, the language could be refined to prevent consideration of open space across high traffic roads. The wording does state that logical bike and pedestrian connections are required. Chair Morris referenced item D3 regarding maximum nonresidential density. It is proposed to add language “public streets and alleys shall be excluded from land calculations”. He said we ran into this with the Victoria Ponds development when we looked at the holding ponds that were being factored in the land use calculations. They took up a lot of green space. He asked if it might be appropriate to look into excluding water holding ponds from the land use calculations. Ms. Jeremiah said that would be the intent and is the way staff has interpreted density. She said she will check the definition and clarify if necessary. Chair Morris referenced page 11, the old no. 8 referencing trash handling, and said it is his understanding with the way this is written that all outside trash handling 49 and loading areas are to be screened regardless of their proximity to right-of-way, private property or whatever, and we are eliminating that screening if they are not visible from a public right-of-way or public area. He interprets this that screening is no longer a requirement on an interior lot line. Ms. Jeremiah stated a development would actually still be required to have screening but not necessarily architectural screening. In those cases, we would prefer interior loading areas. The new number 8 states that “truck circulation and loading areas must be separated from streets and properties adjoining the development by a Bufferyard F” so adjoining properties would be protected by that bufferyard. Chair Morris asked about the locations of trash handling. Ms.Jeremiah said those would usually be incorporated in loading areas. It does depend on the type of format for the trash handling. She said she could tighten this up. Chair Morris said he does not want to create the possibility for a loop hole and he would like to see the new number 8 address trash handling also. Chair Morris referenced new number 9 and said he is having doubts about reducing the Class I materials from 80 to 60% and would like to see the option of 80% retained. He expressed a concern that there may be too much concrete used. Ms. Jeremiah stated that all sides of a building must have at least 60% Class I materials and you cannot have any Class III materials on any visible facades. Class III materials would include unfinished metal and plain concrete blocks or panels. Class III materials could possibly be used in screened truck loading areas. Chair Morris said his sentiment on the matter is that we retain the option of retaining the 80% of Class I materials unless the developer can demonstrate that the 60% allowable is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the MX District, and giving the Planning Commission and Council the option of reducing it to 60% if the particular design and class of materials warrant such a decrease. Ms. Jeremiah clarified the materials in each class. She said what staff is seeing with the developments is a difficulty with the financial structure of trying to get these mixed use buildings to work and be affordable. She said she does not think we will see a lot of proposals coming in with 80% unless something substantial changes and makes these projects overall more affordable. We do want to encourage good design and the Planning Commission has indicaed a concern that the 80% requirement might lead to monotonous brick buidings. All of the projects would be reviewed either through a development plan or PUD process so the Commission would have the opportunity to look at the building aesthetics and materials. She said if the Commission wants the language to encourage the use of 80% and speak to a potential reduction, she can word it that way. 50 Mr. Garelick stated he agrees with Chair Morris’ comments. Chair Morris stated the intent was to create the MX District with a high quality and higher standard than other districts. He said the recommended action from staff is that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the MX District and associated sections of the Zoning Ordinance. He said he would like to add that the recommendation include the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Garelick so moved and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor. iii. Case No. 99-12-ZA -- Initiate miscellaneous amendments to Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Jeremiah presented the staff report and asked that the Commission direct staff to bring back drafted language for the various amendments. Staff’s intent would be to bring the proposed amendments to the Commission for their consideration at two or three meetings. Ms. Jeremiah also asked the Commission for feedback on whether it feels the need to initiate these kinds of amendments or would you be comfortable having staff initiate the amendments and bring the analysis and proposed language directly to the Commission, eliminating the initiation step. Mr. Gothberg asked for clarification on the issue of the Planning Commission or City Council holding the public hearings. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the proposal is that the City Council would not hold a public hearing except in the case of Comprehensive Plan Amendments at which time both would hold a public hearing. All other public hearings would be held at Planning Commission. The City Council has been very consistent in allowing public comment even when there is no formal public hearing and she anticipates this would continue. Ms. Jeremiah stated she is not sure it would make much difference to the public as they are currently notified for both the Planning Commission and the public hearing at Council. It would be helpful to staff regarding the formal notice to the paper. As it stands now some hearings are held at Planning Commission and some at Council so a formal change would eliminate any confusion. It would be clearer to be consistent and most cities do have all public hearings at Planning Commission. Mr. Gothberg said from what he has seen on the Commission is too often not enough people are aware of the public hearing or discussions at Planning Commission and we have seen a few people come forward, but when we defer action many people come forward. The key is to do a better job of publication and public notice. 51 Chair Morris agreed with Mr. Gothberg and said that too often the Commission spends two hours of discussion and then the same discussion is repeated at the public hearing at the Council Meeting. If the goal is to invite the public to one meeting and have one opportunity to speak, such long meetings need not take place. He said he noticed in the minutes of the last Board of Zoning Appeals meeting that a lengthy discussion took place. He said he is not certain what issues of zoning would be coming to the Planning Commission, but those meetings require some very technical expertise on building and zoning codes not relative to what Planning Commission may note. Although it is a good idea to fix the place of public hearing and have only one, he cautions that he would rather have the overwhelming time at City Council for public hearing. If the Commission knows what is coming and they are qualified to deal with the issues at hand, they could deal with it at Planning Commission at public hearing. He said he is not certain what the Commission would be getting into but that is part of what staff would be bringing back as a recommendation. Chair Morris said he wholly agrees with staff initiating zoning ordinance amendments. He said staff’s recommendation is for the Commission to direct staff to prepare language for various ordinance amendments and bring them back to the Commission for review. Mr. Carver so moved. Mr. Garelick asked for a clarification of the ordinance’s effectiveness for the section that was inadvertently deleted. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the Commercial/Recreational Vehicle ordinance was adopted correctly but a section related to the parking code was inadvertently deleted. Chair Morris called the question regarding initiating the ordinance amendments and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris and Timian voting in favor. 6. Communications A. Minor Amendment to Victoria Ponds regarding trail (verbal report). Ms. Jeremiah stated that the City is in the process of preparing the detailed plans along the old Hutchinson Spur corridor which comes up on the Victoria Ponds property. When the conditional use permit was approved, the developer showed an 8 foot trail and the plan now is for a 10 foot design. A number of the documents for the development need to be changed to accommodate the wider trail. This will go before the City Council in the near future. 52 B. Park Commons Phase I clarification (verbal report) Ms. Jeremiah clarified some confusion on the plan for Park Commons Phase I. She understands that there was some confusion on whether the plan presented to the Planning Commission was the same plan presented to the City Council. She said it is the same plan. Regarding the question of owner occupied or for sale townhomes shown on the plan, there were some on the area by the park closest to the Westmoreland Condos on the east side of the town green. There was discussion at City Council that more for sale townhouses should be encouraged so staff is looking at options for increasing the number. Chair Morris said the issue was raised by Commissioner Velick, and the understanding is that there would only be 40-50 units of single family as opposed to 5-700 which is only about a 10% mix. He asked if that is accurate. Ms. Jeremiah said the number is accurate as far as the plans the Commission reviewed. There were approximately 40-50 for sale townhome units that could be worked into that area and overall there are 5-600 housing units in the entire plan so it is less than 10%. A revised plan will be coming forward with some ideas for adding for-sale units into the plan but it does not look good for for-sale condominiums. She has talked to a number of developers that say they are not paying for themselves. 7. Miscellaneous Mr. Timian stated that he took the new bike trail toward Hopkins and said there are not enough access points. He asked if they would be added, particularly at Louisiana Avenue. This would be important because there are a lot kids wanting to use the trail to get to Wolfe Park. Ms. Jeremiah stated there has been a consistent comment on the access to the trail and staff is looking into the matter. She would bring the Commission an update on this. Regarding a question on completion of Wolfe Park, Ms. Jeremiah stated that the last she had heard is that the trails would be completed in early July. Apparently the contractor got behind on all their jobs due to the heavy rains over the past few months. 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary 53 Item # 9d* June 11, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1000 FRIENDS OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 75.00 A T S S A INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 98.22 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 662.14 ALL HOURS TOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 ALLEN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 427.95 ARGUEDAS, AMY UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 BERG & ASSOCIATES, G L UNREALIZED REVENUE 340.00 BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 115.02 BILL HICKS & CO, LTD GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,092.61 BLACK SHADOW CARRIAGES UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.97 BOEGER, JANELLE UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BUDGET HELPER PRINTING & PUBLISHING 200.00 BURNETT, BETH & MORLEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 131.00 CAMAS-SHIELY MASONRY PRODUCTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 181.83 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,474.84 CITY BUSINESS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 113.00 CLOSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,320.03 COEN,EDWARD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 CRILEY, KATHI L GENERAL SUPPLIES 156.33 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.28 DALEN, MOLLY UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 94.29 DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 145.47 DOHMAN, WARD SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP 60.00 54 S DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,368.90 ELLINGSON, MARIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 EMPLOYER EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 230.00 ENTEX EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 419.00 ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 53.21 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FASTENAL COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 2.88 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 1,473.30 FOSTER, EMILY UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE (2,520.00) GARCEAU HARDWARE & POWER EQUIP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,259.93 GATENBY, MAREALE UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 201.60 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 12.46 GIWOYNA, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 32.92 GOEDTEL & STOCK CIRCUS BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 700.00 GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 35.20 HABERMAN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 200.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,443.25 HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,602.00 HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 3,360.07 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 7,716.67 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 544.99 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 1,888.33 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 474.82 HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 215.30 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,401.36 ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 509.80 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00 55 INST. FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 975.00 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 826.44 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 66.88 JEWISH COMMUNITY CTR OF GREATE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,690.00 JOHNSON, DENNIS GENERAL SUPPLIES 39.75 JOHNSTON, RANDY MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 JONES, MARK UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,457.30 KAEDING AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERING SERVICES 2,000.00 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 1,994.31 KARLSON, DOROTHY UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.96) LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS PETTY CASH 200.00 LARSON, ERIC GENERAL CUSTOMERS 497.75 LASERTAINMENT PRODUCTIONS INC UNREALIZED REVENUE 2,500.00 LINSK FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 64.00 LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 56.70 M A C T A GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00 MANSFIELD, SEYMOUR MISCELLANEOUS 12.00 MASHEK, JANEA UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,254.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.41 METROCALL TELEPHONE 202.00 MIDWEST RADIO RENTALS UNREALIZED REVENUE 249.21 MIND SHARP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,500.00 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 7,840.76 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 273.81 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 121.11 MORGAN, PAM SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 77.29 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 317.92 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,800.00 NISKA, HOWARD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 19,687.49 56 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 413.46 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 190.78 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 149.64 OSTROVSKAYA, ANNA YOUTH ATHLETICS 38.00 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 321.14 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 7,524.51 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 38.34 PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 139.25 PERFORMANCE OFFICE PAPERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 67.36 PONY PALS UNREALIZED REVENUE 505.00 PORTHAN, TODD GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.00 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.51 PROSOURCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 505.00 PRYOR RESOURCES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 238.00 RADECKI, DAN UNREALIZED REVENUE 2,000.00 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES (33.61) RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 67.82 RAPTOR CENTER UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.66 RECREONICS ETAL BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 962.94 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 485.99 RICHFIELD SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL UNREALIZED REVENUE 550.00 ROBICHON'S UNREALIZED REVENUE 150.00 RYAN, WILLIAM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 168.00 SCHEAR, MORRIS B INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SELLNER, SAMANTHA UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 SLP ATHLETIC DEPT GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.00 SLP COMMUNITY ED DIST #283 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 38.48 SMART TEMPTATIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 168.00 ST FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL UNREALIZED REVENUE 550.00 ST PAUL CLOWN CLUB UNREALIZED REVENUE 150.00 STATE OF MINNESOTA-CPV PROG TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 350.00 STROM, WHITNEY UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 74.41 SUPERIOR FORD MACHINERY & AUTO 21,210.00 57 EQUIPMENT TENNANT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 232.17 THE CLIPP TONES UNREALIZED REVENUE 100.00 THRIFTY RENT-A-CAR UNREALIZED REVENUE 200.00 TKDA ENGINEERING SERVICES 3,304.90 TOM'S MECHANICAL MUSIC UNREALIZED REVENUE 250.00 TREGO, DANIELLE UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 8,011.06 TWIN CITIES MUSICIANS UNION UNREALIZED REVENUE 954.00 TWIN CITY UNICYCLE CLUB UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 U S BANK FISCAL AGENT FEES 2,605.00 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN- MADISO UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,000.00 VINE, TARA UNREALIZED REVENUE 50.00 VIRGINIA TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, I OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 133.56 VOELKER, STACY M PETTY CASH 700.00 WALBRIDGE, DAVID UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 WALTONS HOLLOW UNREALIZED REVENUE 550.00 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 89.00 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,118.27 WCRA WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 4,949.22 WEST SUB. MEDIATION CENTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,900.00 WILSONS NURSERY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 6,445.38 WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY UNREALIZED REVENUE 500.00 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.84 WOLFF, JEFF GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.72 WSB ASSOCIATES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 2,557.13 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 490.71 ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 94.63 ZIP PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 174.98 ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 131.90 ZUHRAH SHRINE ORIENTAL BAND UNREALIZED REVENUE 300.00 200,195.23 June 18, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 58 ADVANTAGE PAPER OFFICE SUPPLIES 454.27 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,962.91 ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.84 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 12.64 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLUMB ENG SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 105.00 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 144.08 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 388.46 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 356.12 BEEKS PIZZA GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.60 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,758.77 BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER & ASSOCI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,883.00 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 222.65 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 273.20 BRENTS SIGNS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 15.98 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BURROWS, KELLI PRINTING & PUBLISHING 79.88 CARLSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,124.37 CARROLL, WADE GENERAL SUPPLIES 299.98 CARROT-TOP INDUSTRIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 232.50 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 522.96 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.93 COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,537.53 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 464.60 DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 223.07 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 503.18 DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303.97 DINN BROS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 698.21 DIVERSIFIED COATINGS INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 741.00 DUNLOP SLAZENGER RECREATION DE GENERAL SUPPLIES 265.80 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT PARTS 249.21 ELEMENTS, INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL 750.00 59 SERVICES ENGELEN, MEREDITH PROGRAMMING 143.00 ENGELMAN, CHERYL L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 65.00 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 235.37 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 480.62 FINE HOMEBUILDING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 59.00 FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 41.94 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 28.38 GOULD, VERDA GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.41 GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS 30.96 HALLBERG MARINE INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,236.67 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 249.33 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 659.77 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 116.97 HENN CO PUBLIC RECORDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.50 HENNEPIN CO ASSESSOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 352.00 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 1,131.20 HILL, HAROLD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00 HILLMAN, LAURA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 146.38 HOLZ, ANNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 140.85 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.53 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 138.48 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 483.23 ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 521.62 INDELCO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 58.51 J & A HANDY-CRAFTS, INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 659.96 J H LARSON COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 570.81 JOHNSON, DENNIS GENERAL SUPPLIES 39.81 60 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 256.87 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43 KEVITT EXCAVATING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 8,939.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.96) KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41 LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16 LAPOINTE SIGN INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 665.63 LARSON, DOUG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 34.97 LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 83.41 LAUER, DANIEL A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 47.74 LAYER, ELIZABETH INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,410.00 M G F O A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 250.00 M U C C TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 120.00 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,956.24 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,683.75 MAYNARD, MARY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 185.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.93 MERKLEY, SCOTT OFFICE SUPPLIES 85.09 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 242,617.29 METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 24,683.67 METROCALL POSTAGE 22.57 MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 552.24 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,344.73 MINN RECREATION & PARK ASSN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 90.00 MINNEGASCO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11.14 MN CHAPTER OF AIIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 45.00 MN CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 78.00 MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 1,817.59 61 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 50.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 625.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MOLSTAD, ROBERT MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 74.40 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.45 NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 11,340.12 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,105.04 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,110.50 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 46,206.65 OLD REPUBLIC TITLE BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 35,000.00 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46 OSBORNE, MICHAEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 21.21 PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,164.09 PAPER WAREHOUSE- GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.09 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 414.00 PARKLYNN BUILDERS COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,143.00 PETES WATER & SEWER INC STREET OPENING 60.00 PHYSIO CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.85 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 336.00 QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,750.00 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 786.99 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 413.50 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.24 SANDBERG, MARGUERITE SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 10.00 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 30.00 SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 763.24 62 SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 POSTAGE 28.86 SPENCER, MARC SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 10.00 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 377.25 ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 41.90 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS OTHER ADVERTISING 819.60 STAGES THEATRE CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 144.00 STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 1,911.15 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 37.74 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 36.40 SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 188.72 TEKSYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,535.50 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 754.53 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 35.00 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,521.47 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,918.06 VAUGHAN, JIM MEETING EXPENSE 36.02 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 754.34 VOELKER, STACY M STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 451.00 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,502.29 WESOLOSKI, JACKIE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 244.66 WHEELER HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,356.31 WHITE, JIM INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 WILLARDSON, NIEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.38 WOLFE, STEPHEN D MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 205.53 WOLK, SHERYL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 WSB ASSOCIATES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 2,951.88 ZIEGLER INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 24,461.99 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 593.22 485,412.10 June 14, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 1,020.92 1,020.92 63 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAG WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 778.68 FAIRVIEW CLINICS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 108.56 HEACOX-HARTMAN- MATTAINI WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 155.80 MEDICAL ANESTHESIA LTD WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 319.84 METHODIST HOSPITAL WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 133.80 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 49.20 1,545.88 June 15, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68 ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 80,884.13 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,705.21 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,241.00 HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 82,403.28 HEALTHPARTNERS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,774.28 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,666.53 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 155.03 MINN COMM OF REVENUE SEASON TICKETS 19,124.00 MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 467.20 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 783.00 MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INSURANC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,381.21 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 940.00 64 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105,733.97 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 48,653.08 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,331.51 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 9,335.43 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 29,461.43 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 347.35 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,024.47 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,506.46 WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP INSURA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 48.50 417,964.73