The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999/07/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular7:20 p.m.. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 6, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of June 21, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Study Session meeting of May 10, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented c. Study Session meeting of May 24, 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 2 Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 6a. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. 6b. Public Hearing and First Reading of Amendments to “M-X” Mixed- Use District Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code Case No. 99-3-ZA Continued First Reading of an Amendment to the “R-C” High Density Multiple Family Residence District and Zoning Table to Allow Live-Work Units as a Use Permitted With Conditions Recommended Actions: Mayor to close public hearing; Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the “R-C” District and Zoning Table to allow live-work units as a use permitted with conditions in the “R-C” District and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Resolution of Commendation to the Park Commons West Task Force Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution in recognition of the dedicated service of the Park Commons West Task Force members. 8b. Second 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 3 Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone the property from “C-2” to “R-C,” adopt the ordinance and authorize publication 8c. Demolition of Certain Structures, Removal of Streets and Utilities, Grading Work and other Related Activities Associated with the Park Commons Redevelopment Project This report authorizes staff to prepare plans and specifications and to undertake advertisement for bids for activities associated with the demolition or removal of certain structures in the Park Commons area. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing Project 99- 11, ordering Project No. 99-11, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Receipt of Bids *8d. Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 5605 West 36th Street. Recomme nded Action Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 5605 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Vendor Claim Report Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of April 5, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business 11a.* Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping – City Project No. 98-15 This report considers awarding a contract for the construction of two (2) City entrance entry signs and site landscaping to Nadeau Utility, Inc. 4 Recommended Action: Motion to designate Nadeau Utility, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $158,096.35. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments Final- LeadCon, Inc. $ 112,020.35 W. 42nd Street/Zarthan Avenue Reservoir Repairs Contract No. 51-98 Action: By consent adopt resolutions. Partial Hardrives, Inc. $ 124,540.78 Construction Phase 2 Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Ave to France Ave Contract No. 14-98 Valley Paving $ 116,882.11 Pavement mill & overlay, and watermain replacement – Ford Road from Ford Lane to I-394 North Service Drive Action: By consent approve and authorize payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 5 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 21, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations 2a. Retirement of Sgt. Phillip Stuemke. An number of persons were present to honor Sgt. Phillip Stuemke for his service to the City of St. Louis Park and the community. Sgt. Stuemke was recognized for his contributions to the Police Explorer program and his efforts in working with youth programs. 2b. Swearing in Ceremony for Ward Three Councilmember, Susan Santa Judge Cara Lee Neville was present to officially swear in Susan Santa, who was appointed to serve as Third Ward Councilmember for a term to expire on January 3, 2000. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of June 7, 1999 Councilmember Latz asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect that while some Councilmembers had encouraged others to be involved in democracy by exercising their right to run for the office in November, there were other comments made about the rigorous selection process Council had undertaken and that the candidate chosen was deemed best suited to represent Ward III. Councilmember Sanger pointed out that on page 8 the word “construction” should be changed to “constructive”. 6 With those corrections, the minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 6-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 6a. 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 A summary of the staff report was presented by Sacha Peterson. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right of Council to reopen at a future date. Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification that Silvercrest Properties owned the entire parcel and that they were requesting this change. Ms. Peterson replied that both statements were correct. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the housing would be sold at market rate. Ms. Peterson stated that the property was not expected to redevelop in the near future and that when it did, staff would encourage development for multi-age housing at market rate. Councilmember Brimeyer asked for clarification of “near future”. Ms. Peterson replied that redevelopment would not occur for three to five hears. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the first reading of an ordinance to rezone the property “C-2” to “R-C” and set second reading for July 6, 1999. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Latz. Motion passed unanimously. 7 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 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 Michael Christianson, owner of the property at 4312 Coolidge presented to council a timeline of events which occurred during the process of constructing the accessory building at that location. He believed that Scott Moore had been helpful and had acted in good faith throughout the entire process. Mr. Christianson described in detail the chronology of events which had occurred. He expressed his extreme frustration in that he had cooperated with staff throughout the entire construction process, had received a favorable determination from the Board and Zoning Appeals and did not feel Council’s decision of June 7th regarding height of the structure was warranted. John Miller reiterated his comments of the June 7th meeting regarding Lowry vs. City of Mankato. Mr. Christianson asked how lay persons working through and cooperating fully with City staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals can be expected to know what is and isn’t allowable under the ordinance. Councilmember Nelson asked that paragraph 10 of the findings of fact be revised to clarify that the measurement of height is based on a reference to the definition of gable as it appears in Webster’s Dictionary. Councilmember Young stated that BOZA had upheld staff’s interpretation of height measurement and asked what differed in item number 10 of the timeline from the original interpretation staff had made. Mr. Hoffman stated that after BOZA had upheld staff’s interpretation of measuring the gable facing the east, another inspection was made. At that time the height of the roof system was again measured and it was discovered that the roof was not in conformance with the code. Councilmember Young asked how it came to be that the structure had been built taller than originally proposed. Mr. Hoffman stated that though the interpretation of how to measure height had not changed, other changes had taken place that affected the overall building height. An 18 inch high kneewall had been added to the first floor wall height and a roof overhang was cut off, thereby affecting the calculation of overall height of the structure. Councilmember Young stated that the net effect, even if Council had not overturned the decision by BOZA, was that the building height would need to be reduced. Mr. Hoffman concurred. 8 Councilmember Brimeyer asked what the height of the building could be if using the definition of height calculation determined by Council. Mr. Hoffman stated that it would be 18 to 18.5 feet. Mr. Hoffman presented a definition of what the gable end of a roof is and how it’s measurement is computed. Councilmember Nelson asked that for the purposes of this interpretation the definition as provided in Webster’s be used. Mr. Scott restated Council’s request to include in the resolution the definition as it appears in Webster’s and offered to rewrite that section of the resolution. He did not believe that the resolution needed to come back for additional discussion and recommended that Council adopt the resolution with changes. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a resolution with changes as discussed, that 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 the issue of height of the garage. The motion passed 6-0. 8b. Community Notification Grant By consent, Council adopted the resolution approving the grant agreement between the Community Notification Grant Program and the City of St. Louis Park and authorizing the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute this agreement. 8c. Community-Oriented Policing (COPS) Grant By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution approving a grant 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 By consent, council adopted the 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 Authority Minutes of May 12, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 9 b. Planning Commission Minutes of May 19, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. c. Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. d. Vendor Claims By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business - None 11. New Business - None 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments - None 14. Communications Mayor Jacobs commented on the success of the St. Louis Park Parktacular celebration and thanked the Parktacular Board and other volunteers involved for their efforts. 15. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 10 Item # 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May 10, 1999 The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson), Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah), and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 1. Park Commons The item was introduced by Ms. Jeremiah. She stated that staff was comfortable with the discussion that had taken place since last month. Ms. Jeremiah then gave a brief explanation of several of the plan components. Greg Esterman of Avalon Bay and Dennis Sutliff of ESG Architects were present. Mr. Esterman was quite positive about the developments so far. Mr. Sutliff stated the key to understanding the plan was to focus on the 3-D vision. Gary Wilson, Housing Manager for Avalon Bay, and Bill Beard, a local commercial developer, were also present at the meeting. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the development plans included an art space or other public use. He asked if the developers had considered how civic space could be incorporated and what financial impacts that component would affect. He believed that a civic component would help retail visibility. Mr. Meyer stated that a north and south road to the west of Wolfe Lake was designated as civic space. Councilmember Sanger inquired about the kind of art space that could be developed. Councilmember Brimeyer said the Friends of the Arts were scheduled to attend the next study session meeting on May 24th to present their Strategic Plan for the Arts in St. Louis Park. He believed they had concepts in mind. Mr. Harmening stated that the Phase I plans were nearly complete and believed that a civic component would be more logically included in the next phase of planning. 11 Councilmember Brimeyer felt that a location for civic use should be determined immediately. Ms. Jeremiah agreed with Mr. Harmening that the timing for inclusion in this phase of planning was not right and also suggested that civic use be part of the next planning phase. Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification on what could be expected on Excelsior Blvd. She was interested in the visibility of the Town Green.. Mr. Esterman replied that a two to three story building with eye-pleasing architecture and facades would be visible along with retail stores and a large open space into the town green. Ms. Jeremiah stated that proper signage would be key to the area’s success. Councilmember Sanger stated the some spaces are already expanding and asked how the City might keep “big box” businesses out. Mr. Esterman stated that large retailers do well at marketing and will attract people and activity. Councilmember Sanger felt uncomfortable with the number of rental housing units. She asked for inclusion of more “for sale” housing. Mr. Esterman replied that there are several factors that discourage “for sale” housing. Factors which affect the desirability of “for sale” housing are shared services such as trash pick-up and utilities, parking, high density population, and active uses near the housing areas. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about renters as “transients” and believed they would not be willing to invest and participate in the community. Councilmember Brimeyer disagreed and felt it unfair to characterize renters as transients. Mr. Wilson described the kind of person attracted to life in a new urbanist design community. He stated that a diverse population rents in urban spaces. He believed other mechanisms were available to create move up housing in St. Louis Park that better satisfied the needs of people in “middle life”. Mr. Wilson then made the point that there are many more housing choices available in St. Louis Park than in other cities. Councilmember Latz asked Councilmember Sanger if people were expressing a desire for condominiums in the area. Ms. Jeremiah stated that it would be possible to convert the condos into rental property if the market did not respond favorably to the “for sale” concept in the development. Councilmember Nelson agreed with Councilmember Sanger . He stated that the Avalon market study had said townhomes were doing well in the housing market. He pointed out that Mr. Zimmerman had said that 19% of the housing units were to be owner occupied. He had understood that the balance of rental units would be greater in Phase I but did not feel 3 – 10% of owned units were enough. He could appreciate the reluctance to purchase in active retail district, but was concerned that Avalon was predisposed to rental because that is what they do for a living. He also viewed renters as a transient population and would like to see more owner occupied units. 12 Mr. Esterman stated that he did not believe this location would be suitable for owner occupied units as most retailers preferred rentals above their commercial space. Home owners were a more demanding group and conflicts were fewer between retailers and renters. Councilmember Nelson inquired about information the City was to have received from Ellerbe Becket. Ms. Jeremiah stated that all materials had been received from Ellerbe Becket and explained some communication difficulties staff had experienced with that company. Councilmember Young felt that the civic element should be removed from the design. He believed the civic elements had already been addressed through the renovated Rec Center, Town Green, Wolfe Park, and the Amphitheater. He would like more townhouses but agreed after hearing the recent arguments that rental property would be preferable. Young suggested that condominiums be an option for the future. He felt townhomes in the northwest section would be ideal as owner occupied units. Mr. Esterman reviewed the marketing strategy. Mr. Wilson explained how a spread or variety of options would increase the desirability of the area. Councilmember Latz believed that underground parking for the town green would be preferable to ramp parking. He asked if Avalon has considered placing parking underground. Mr. Sutcliff showed an underground parking design. He stated it would be an expensive project and would cost approximately $4.5 million more than an above ground design . Councilmember Latz made several points about the project: • Underground parking could make more room for housing. • Demand for rental property is extremely high in St. Louis Park. • A civic component could be located on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. • The town green should be large enough to hold an outdoor café • He preferred a fast development timeline Councilmember Latz asked if others preferred a slower development. Mr. Harmening said the development should be done as quickly as possible but it must be done right. He said the success of the any project is based on good up-front work. Councilmember Brimeyer said the amount of money spent on amenities such as underground parking and the design need to balance to show a return on the community’s investment. Mr. Anderson mentioned that money is precious on the public side. The plan must be workable and address any future changes. This is a $130 million project that includes a town green, parking, streetway, infrastructure, and redevelopment of private properties. 13 The City has traditionally invested 25 – 30 % as a development partner in other projects. He felt the project needed to be analyzed block by block over the next several weeks. He indicated that staff would also be studying the reinvestments of tax proceeds. Mr. Harmening indicated that the City was nearing the completion of private home acquisitions. He said the City would need to provide financing assistance to help relocate some families. Ms. Jeremiah and Charlene Zimmer of SRF presented several roadway alternatives. Ms. Jeremiah recommended working individually with the property owners to answer concerns over road way design before reconvening the Park Commons West Task Force. Councilmember Nelson wanted to know how soon roadway construction could begin. Ms. Jeremiah said that the environmental assessment may affect construction time. Ms. Zimmer presented the preferred roadway option from SRF. That option was generally supported by the community, but problems would need to be resolved concerning the Byerly’s drive through. Councilmember Nelson felt the T-intersection at Park Shore Blvd was good but was concerned about the realignment of Quentin Ave. Council discussed particular points of the plan, pedestrian safety and overall development plans for various parcels in the area. 2. Land Use Changes - Comprehensive Plan Mr. Harmening and Ms. Jeremiah opened for questions from the Council. Councilmember Nelson had received concerns from Opitz Outlet management regarding guidance on adjacent sites from commercial to residential. Councilmember Latz felt it should be left commercial. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the owner’s investment in the property warrants the continued use as commercial. Mr. Meyer said there were also concerns from staff. Councilmember Young felt that the proposed land use change on item five should be modified to state that only three of the five parcels mentioned should be rezoned. He felt that by removing two parcels from commercial zoning, they could act as a buffer from the 13th Street residential area. Councilmember Latz felt that it was counter-intuitive to guide the frontage road along 394 as residential. Councilmember Sanger felt that the proposed land use change for the Blackstone neighborhood would raise park issues. 14 It was decided that this item come as a public hearing. 3. Transit Study Update Stuart Krohn of LSA and Brian Lamb of Metro Transit were present at the meeting. They discussed the similarities between a transit way and a light rail corridor and also indicated a projected timeline: • Cost estimates within the month • Final draft back to each City Council • City Councils of each city meet to discuss and finalize • Construction to begin next year Councilmember Sanger asked if this plan is what Metro Transit wants or if it is what is really needed by St. Louis Park. Mr. Lamb said that community connections increase by creating a grid system with connections between all communities. He stated that in creating the plan, they had looked at the total city transit needs. Then they worked with staff to create a system where transit systems are logical. On the issue of cost, a fixed route service structure would be subsidized by Met Council. The question was raised if there were any needs not being met. Councilmember Brimeyer said that he understood routes need to be balance with ridership projections Councilmember Nelson felt that an effective grid worked as a circulator Discussion took place as to whether a fixed grid system could serve as a circulator. Councilmember Nelson felt that if it was an effective grid, it could work to serve the entire community. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if this approach was being used elsewhere or just in St. Louis Park. Mr. Lamb responded that it was proposed throughout the first ring suburbs. Councilmember Sanger stated that she was opposed to the plan. Councilmember Brimeyer felt the plan was on the right track. Councilmember Nelson asked if Metro Transit was willing to make changes and what the cost would be to the City. Mr. Lamb stated that during the legislative session, Metro Transit had received indications that they would experience a ten percent growth in their budget. He also stated that if the plan is to succeed, the percentage of funds from the state must also grow. 15 Mr. Meyer asked if a meeting between the three cities was premature. Mr. Lamb stated that Hennepin County was looking at a greenway on 29th Street and a feasibility study would be done by the end of September. Mayor Jacobs asked if there should be subsequent discussion of a St. Louis Park circulator. Councilmember Latz said that he would like to take a closer look at proposed routes, but was supportive of the general concept Mr. Indicated that a final report would be available in September with details, conclusions and recommendations. Mr. Harmening suggested Metro Transit come back with information based on Council comments for another discussion. Metro Transit agreed to return at a later date with a response. It was suggested that a meeting or tour of the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka be planned for late summer. 4. Miscellaneous Zoning Issues Staff discussed several instances where the application of the Zoning Ordinance resulted in unexpected results. Staff asked Council for direction to prepare code amendments to better clarify the City’s intent or offer interpretations. Councilmember Sanger asked if applying for a permit to build a garage was different from applying to build an accessory building. Mr. Hoffman responded that there was no difference. Councilmember Sanger asked how storage could be kept from becoming a home occupation. Mr. Hoffman responded that enforcement is difficult and the only way to know would be for inspectors to gain entry into homes. Councilmember Latz said that the ways in which people’s work lives connect with home lives is changing. He did not feel blanket restrictions on home businesses was prudent. Mayor Jacobs asked if changes need to be made to the ordinance. Mr. Hoffman responded that a change to the ordinance would not make enforcement easier. A member of the public spoke about an alleged ordinance violation and expressed their disappointment in the lack of enforcement on the part of the City. Mr. Hoffman indicated that the discussion taking place was in regard to the ordinance in general and not to be directed toward discussion of any one structure. Other ordinance provisions were discussed including: fencing, air conditioner locations and minimum lot widths. Mr. Hoffman felt the ordinance regarding vacant homes was adequate to cover health and safety issues. Council discussed the merits of placing aesthetic standards into an ordinance that would 16 require paint and siding to maintain certain standards. Councilmember Brimeyer said that community value and appearance should be maintained. Mr. Meyer stated that staff would take a closer look at this issue. Mr. Hoffman asked if staff should also look at allowable building heights and how they are determined. Council agreed that it should be looked at. Mr. Hoffman advised Council that an issue would come before them in June concerning a non- conforming garage. 5. Communications On the topic of garbage cans, it was suggested that random spot inspections be done. Councilmember Brimeyer wanted to address questions of redevelopment with Park Nicollet. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 17 Item # 4c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May 24, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick), Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah), and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 1. Friends of the Arts Strategic Plan Curt Peterson, Louise Bramhall, Rich Pearson, Carole Humphrey, Cathy Reimer, and Jan Muston were all present at the meeting. Mr. Peterson stated he was not able to collect all of the desired information from the schools, as this is a very busy time of year. He indicated that the missing information would be provided at a later date. Mr. Peterson asked for Council questions and comments. He said Council would bring the final plan forward for adoption in early June. Councilmember Brimeyer wanted the City’s portion of plan to be completed quickly. He was very much in support of the plan and felt some portions could be initiated more quickly that others. Council discussed mechanisms that would allow the Friends of the Arts to be self-sustaining while maintaining connections with public institutions. Councilmember Nelson stated that he agreed with the City providing seed money but felt the FOA should eventually become self-sustaining. He felt that any paid staff needed to carry out the plan initiatives should be educated about the community. Mr. Peterson stated that the Arts would never be completely self-sustaining. Public money will always be needed to supplement funding from other sources such as private and corporate donations. Councilmember Latz believed that St. Louis Park had the potential for a great deal of corporate support for the arts. He asked if the board structure was geared toward enlisting corporate support. Mr. Peterson stated that the Board could use members from the corporate environment to assist in garnering larger contributions. 18 Councilmember Nelson asked if there was a prepared budget for the year 2000. Mr. Peterson replied that there was not. Councilmember Brimeyer thought the budget should be considered along with the rest of the City’s preliminary budget discussions. Councilmember Young asked what action will be taken and what commitments the City would have to undertake all initiatives included in the strategic plan. Mr. Peterson suggested that Council first adopt the vision statement. He said adopting the vision does not mean undertaking all actions. Annual work plans and feasibility will need to be considered. Mayor Jacobs stated that this is a vision of where we as a community would like to go if resources can be made available. Mr. Peterson stated that feasibility studies need to be undertaken and that a short term action plan to present with the vision adoption will be available. Councilmember Nelson asked if City staff had reviewed the strategic plan and considered financial implications. Mr. Meyer said that staff would become more involved following adoption of the strategic plan by Council. 2. CUP Variance Procedures Council considered a request for a change in procedure for conditional use permits. Staff recommended amending the zoning code to authorize Planning Commission review and City Council approval of variance requests when made in conjunction with the conditional use permit process. Councilmember Young did not see the need for shortening the review period for development proposals. He did not want this particular duty taken from BOZA. Councilmember Sanger agreed and felt that keeping a separation of duties between BOZA and the Planning Commission would be beneficial. Mayor Jacobs saw the value in streamlining administrative processes. Councilmember Young stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission had the expertise to consider variances. The possibility of submitting the variance request to BOZA concurrently with development proposal review by the Planning Commission was discussed. Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Jeremiah stated this would not be feasible. Mr. Hoffman said that the process as it is takes four months. He made the point that there are three boards and two sets of staff. 19 Mayor Jacobs made the observation that a change in procedure would not substantively affect the quality of the review process. He felt that shortening the time frame for approval would be beneficial to our customers. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that red tape should be eliminated wherever possible in City services. Councilmember Latz felt that major development proposals should be viewed as a “whole picture”, not in pieces and felt that the recommended change would be beneficial toward achieving that goal. Councilmember Nelson asked if staff would automatically back a variance. Ms. Jeremiah replied that staff may offer alternative suggestions. Councilmember Nelson supported achieving the same result using a shorter process. Mr. Meyer said the City of St. Louis Park is often considered business “unfriendly”. The City is working toward streamlining processes, while retaining quality results. Mayor Jacobs voiced his support for that idea. Councilmember Sanger asked if it would be possible to place a sunset on the ordinance. Mr. Meyer said it would be more disruptive to both customers and staff to change a process and then change back. Mr. Hoffman stated that St. Louis Park has high standards and that those standards will be maintained. 3. Property Values Mr. Stepnick distributed a chart showing the assessed value compared to the sales price of homes homesteaded in the last month. Discussion followed about how property tax levels are set and how the City could achieve a closer match between market value and assessed value. Mr. Stepnick pointed out that home values can only be raised a certain amount each year due to the statute of limitations imposed by the state. He also explained how the taxable value of homes does not affect the overall city tax levy. Mayor Jacobs asked Council to consider if they felt there are inequities in the assessment process and, if so, to consider what changes the Council would want to implement to rectify those inequities. Councilmember Sanger asked if staff could look at ways to close the gap between assessed value and sale price. Mr. Stepnick replied that they would look at comparables in the neighborhoods 20 and that staff would make every effort to achieve accuracy when assigning tax values to properties in St. Louis Park.. Council felt they needed more facts on the cost of those homes currently being acquired for the park Commons development. Factors they wished to consider were market value, comparable housing, and relocation benefits. 4. Tax Issues Ms. McBride presented an outlook on taxation issues for the year 2000. Issues discussed were property tax levy limits, major state aids such as Local Government Aid and HACA, additional property class rate reductions and expansion of the limited market value. 5. Mixed Use Staff presented to Council proposed amendments to the MX Mixed Use District ordinance and asked Council to discuss the proposed definition for “live-work units” and potential standards for their use in both the MX and RC multiple family residential districts. Ms. Jeremiah explained that the ordinance only applies to commercial and civic mixed use property and identified those areas to be designated as MX. She also explained that the ordinance works toward facilitating the redevelopment plan for Phase One of the Park Commons project. She clarified that the first level of mixed use will be strongly guided toward commercial or civic, and the upper levels will be a mix of retail and housing. Councilmember Latz asked how the City will determine what is classified as a living activity or a working activity. Councilmember Nelson felt there would be a problem with extending the live/work option to residential zones. Councilmember Latz felt there were enough restrictions in the RC Zoning areas and the live/work zoning would be appropriate. Mayor Jacobs, Councilmember Brimeyer, and Councilmember Latz all agreed that St. Louis Park needs to be friendly to the 21st century worker and new ways of doing business. Mr. Harmening felt there were multiple checks and balances in place that may potentially be more restrictive than the ordinance. Councilmember Young felt there should be more “for sale” housing in the Park commons area and did not wish to see sign clutter for businesses on home fronts. Councilmember Brimeyer felt that the market and lifestyle of the people would dictate the success of the RC. It was agreed that this item would be discussed at greater length in July. 21 6. Communications City Manager informed Council of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding Apple Valley Redi-Mix. Discussion took place regarding arrangements for Councilmembers to appear in the Parktacular parade. Procedure for appointment of Ward 3 Councilmember was discussed. 7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 22 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of July 6, 1999 6a. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Background: The property owners, Daniel and Karen Vetch, are requesting that a portion of a utility easement which crosses their vacant residential lot be vacated. The entire easement is 40 feet wide, and curves westward from Flag Avenue. Approximately the north 20 feet crosses the Vetch’s lot and the remainder of the easement crosses the residential lot to the south. There is a 6 inch water main within the portion of the easement that is not proposed to be vacated. The purpose of the vacation request is to create a larger buildable area on the lot. Issues: • Is the easement needed by the City? • Why is the City requiring a new two foot easement? • Are there any other issues? Issues Analysis: Is the easement needed by the City? The Public Works Department has examined the need for that portion of the utility easement proposed to be vacated. There are no utilities within this portion of the easement, and there is no anticipated need for the easement in the future. Because there is a 6 inch water main within the southern half of the easement, which would remain, Public Works is requiring that a new two foot utility easement be dedicated along the Vetch’s south lot line, to ensure adequate access to the water main remains. Normally, a five foot utility easement is required along all lot lines for new subdivisions; however, in this case Public Works has determined that only a two foot easement is needed. This entire utility easement was originally a street right of way, which was never improved. When the City vacated the right of way the entire 40-foot width was dedicated for a utility easement. The issue has not been raised until recently because the property has been 23 undeveloped. The property has recently been sold to a private owner through tax forfeiture, and the owner intends to sell the lot to a builder. Why is the City requiring a new two foot easement? According to the Public Works Department, when the street right of way was vacated and then dedicated as a utility easement, this was not done according to the typical procedure. Therefore, although the existing easement is legal, Public Works would prefer to vacate the entire north 20 feet and have the property owner dedicate a new two foot easement, rather than simply vacate the north 18 feet of the existing easement. Are there any other issues? Other City Departments: Other City departments have had the opportunity to review the proposed vacation and have accepted the vacation. Utility Companies: Easement vacation requests are routinely sent to utility companies. Utility companies have reviewed the proposed vacation and have no objections. Buildable Lot: The existing lot including the utility easement is already a buildable lot. Granting the vacation request enlarges the buildable area on the lot, increasing the flexibility for building a home on the site. Public Comment: The adjacent resident to the south has expressed some concerns which are outlined in an attached letter. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation request with the following condition: 1. Final approval of the vacation shall be contingent upon the property owner granting a two foot utility easement to the City along the south property line. The easement shall be drafted by the property owner and recorded against the property at the property owner’s expense. Attachments: • Ordinance • Location Map • Area Map • Survey • Draft of easement document dedicating new two foot utility easement • Letter from adjacent neighbor opposing vacation Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 24 ORDINANCE NO.___________ AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTION OF UTILITY EASEMENT 2902 FLAG AVENUE SOUTH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the utility easement proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the utility easement, and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on June 23, 1999 as directed by said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the utility easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said utility easement be vacated. Section 2. The following described utility easement, as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: That part of the following described Tract: A strip of land 40 feet in width being 20 feet on each side of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 21; thence North along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to its intersection with Easterly extension of the Northerly line of the South ½ of Lot 5, Block 1, “J. F. Lyons 4th Addition.” Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Northwesterly along a tangential curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, a delta angle of 89 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 156.1 feet; thence Westerly tangent to the last described curve to the Northerly line of said Block 1 and there terminating, Which lies within that part of Lot 2, Block 1, “J. F.Lyons 4th Addition. “Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 35 feet thereof. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. 25 Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication and only upon the owner granting to the City a two foot utility easement along the south property line. Adopted by the City Council July 19, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 26 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #6b Meeting of July 6, 1999 6b. Public Hearing and First Reading of Amendments to “M-X” Mixed- Use District Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code Case No. 99-3-ZA Continued First Reading of an Amendment to the “R-C” High Density Multiple Family Residence District and Zoning Table to Allow Live-Work Units as a Use Permitted With Conditions Recommended Actions: Mayor to close public hearing; Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the “R-C” District and Zoning Table to allow live-work units as a use permitted with conditions in the “R-C” District and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. Background: On February 5, 1996 the City Council adopted the original “M-X” Mixed Use District ordinance. At that time it was envisioned for possible use on the Honeywell redevelopment site as well as the future town center area. It was written for potential use with any underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation(s). Therefore, the ordinance was very broad in encompassing both multiple use development (several single use buildings planned together) and mixed use buildings. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan has been rewritten to include two Mixed Use designations - Commercial Mixed Use and Civic Mixed Use. These designations are more specific in the type of development envisioned, but they have been applied to limited areas. The new Comprehensive Plan also promotes a variety of different housing opportunities in the City. The “R-C” High Density Multiple Family Residence District has been applied to areas where high density housing is encouraged, including portions of larger mixed-use areas such as Park Commons. The “R-C” District has also been applied to the Mill City Plywood site at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue based upon a Task Force recommendation for apartments on the site. On February 3, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated amendments to the “R-C” District, and on February 24, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated amendments to the “M-X” District. 27 The amendments were intended to improve consistency with goals for the districts based upon Task Force initiatives and the new Comprehensive Plan. On March 17, 1999, the Planning Commission formally recommended the amendments to the “R-C” District, including allowing live-work units in the district under certain conditions. The City Council held the public hearing for First Reading of the “R-C” amendments on April 5, 1999. The City Council approved most of the “R-C” amendments but directed staff to put the live-work section on a Study Session agenda for discussion along with amendments to the “M- X” District. On May 24, 1999, the City Council discussed the proposed “M-X” District amendments as well as potential standards for allowing live-work units to be considered in the “R-C” District. There was general agreement regarding the proposed amendments to the “M-X” District and definition of live-work units. However, there was not consensus regarding allowing live-work units under certain conditions in the “R-C” District. The recommended standards for allowing live-work units in the “R-C” District have therefore been included in a separate ordinance and motion. The Planning Commission formally recommended these amendments in March. On June 2, 1999, the Planning Commission formally recommended the amendments to the “M- X” District ordinance. Since live-work units would be allowed in the “M-X” District, the proposed definition for live-work units is included with the “M-X” amendments. Other associated sections of the Zoning Code, such as the land use table and sign ordinance are also being updated. Issues: • What properties would likely be rezoned to “M-X” in the future? • Would any existing uses become non-conforming? • What changes are proposed to improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the “M-X” District? • What other Code sections are being amended in association with the “M-X” District? • How are live-work units proposed to be further restricted in the “R-C” District Analysis of Issues • What properties would likely be rezoned to “M-X”? At this time, staff is proposing that the “M-X” District only be applied to areas that have a Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Therefore, the following areas would be proposed for rezoning to “M-X”: • portions of the Phase One Park Commons Redevelopment area that have a Civic Mixed Use or Commercial Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation (the townhome areas have a Residential designation and would be zoned “R-C” Multiple Family Residential); 28 • the Amoco property on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard directly across from the future town green (this has a Civic Mixed Use Comp. Plan designation) • the Wayside House property and adjoining surface parking lot on the west side of Wolfe Park (this has a Civic Mixed Use designation); and • the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France (the future redevelopment area by Al’s Bar, which has a Commercial Mixed Use Comp. Plan designation). These properties would be proposed for rezoning to “M-X” to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (as required by State Law) and to prevent any potential redevelopment that is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning is not proposed at this time and would be subject to separate notification and public hearing requirements. • Would any existing uses become non-conforming? If the above-noted properties were rezoned to “M-X” under the proposed district language, most of the existing single-use and single-story buildings would become non-conforming. This means that they could remain in their current state until redevelopment, but they could not be rebuilt if they burned down or were otherwise severely damaged. The one proposed exception relates to the Wayside House, which is classified as a group home. Since the proposed Civic Mixed Use redevelopment of that property has not yet been clearly defined, and redevelopment is not imminent, staff is proposing “grandfathering” the Wayside House group home as a permitted use in the “M-X” District. Therefore, it could be rebuilt if destroyed. The use would also be allowed within a future mixed-use building. • What changes are proposed to improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the “M-X” District? Permitted Uses: As noted, existing group homes would be grandfathered to allow the Wayside House to be rebuilt, if necessary, prior to redevelopment of the property. Uses Permitted with Conditions: Mixed Use developments that have the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designations and an approved Redevelopment Plan would be Permitted with Conditions. This has been discussed as a means of facilitating projects that have already been subject to substantial public review. The Redevelopment Plan would need to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, thereby ensuring that it has undergone a public hearing process. Also, the performance standards of the “M-X” District and other sections of the Zoning Code would need to be met, unless certain standards were specifically waived or amended as part of the adopted Redevelopment Plan (similar language was used in the recently amended “R-C” District). It is expected that the Redevelopment Plan for the Park Commons Phase One area will be proposed for adoption under this language, once the plan is refined as recommended by the Planning Commission and City Council. 29 Uses Permitted By PUD: Other Mixed Use developments could be proposed by applying for Planned Unit Development approval. The proposed development would need to have the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation (Commercial Mixed Use or Civic Mixed Use). The buildings would need to be multi-story and would need to meet certain use mix requirements as well as the performance standards of the district and other Code sections. The use mix requirements would ensure that the ground floor of the buildings contain primarily active commercial or civic uses, while the upper stories would be primarily devoted to uses with an office or residential character. Elderly housing could comprise no more than 50% of the total residential floor area to ensure that the area is available to a diversity of age groups (please note that this limitation is only proposed for the “M-X” District and is not a limitation in the “R-C” District). Live-work units would be deemed to meet the use mix requirements. Drive through uses (in-vehicle sales or service) would not be allowed. These uses have a detrimental effect on pedestrians and need greater land area to accommodate circulation drives (note that these uses could still be considered in areas with a Commercial zoning, which is expected to remain throughout much of the Park Commons area). Accessory Uses: Home occupations have been added to the list of permitted accessory uses in the “M-X” District. Performance Standards: Lot Size: The 10 acre minimum district size has been eliminated, since the Comprehensive Plan and experience suggest that such large sites are not necessary to accommodate mixed-use development. The typical PUD minimum site size of 2 acres would still apply to most developments in these districts. Project References: References to “PUD” throughout the section have been changed to “development” since some projects will be approved as Redevelopment Plans rather than PUDs. Density: The density section has been modified to clarify that stormwater ponds and streets/alleys should be excluded from land calculations (density is typically based upon net land area). The conditions for receiving density bonuses have been modified to ensure that at least two of four conditions are met. The condition related to structured parking has been increased to a minimum of 80% to further discourage massive surface lots in association with high density developments. A reference to potential ground floor civic development has been added to the condition that encourages residential in upper stories. The incentive for office in upper stories has been removed in favor of residential (due to our housing goals). The office condition has been replaced with an incentive to locate buildings close to the street with parking behind buildings (in keeping with Livable Communities principles). Open Space: Contrary to previous discussions, staff is not proposing any major changes to the open space requirements, since the Park Commons Phase One proposal has been deemed to meet the percentages in the ordinance. Staff believes the size of the town green in the Park Commons proposal is a good model for higher density mixed use developments of that size. The proposed town green is within 600 feet (about 2 blocks) of all buildings within the phase one development. 30 Therefore, 600 feet is recommended as a distance to receive credits for existing public open space. Open space credits could also be received for public art or other public amenities at the sole discretion of the City Council. Specific references to fountains and clock towers have been eliminated, since they may not always be appropriate. Setbacks: Setbacks from residential are clarified to include only single-family and two-family residential districts. This is due to the fact that the “M-X” Districts may be developed in close association with higher density multiple-family districts, particularly the “R-C” District. In some instances, the mixed-use buildings and multi-family buildings may even share building walls and use the same parking structures. This will likely be the case in the Park Commons Phase One area. Setbacks from the street have been modified to reference adequate visibility rather than 15 feet setbacks. This will encourage buildings to be developed as close as possible to public street sidewalks and on-street parking. Drive-throughs: Conditions for in-vehicle sales and service have been deleted, since drive- through uses are proposed to be prohibited in these high-density mixed use developments. Screening: Screening requirements for trash handling and loading areas have been clarified. Architecture: Architectural standards have been modified to allow reductions in Class I materials requirements from 80% to 60% if certain conditions are met. The conditions would encourage a balance of architectural diversity and visual compatibility. Specific architectural plans would be reviewed as part of the Redevelopment Plan or PUD process. However, language has been added to discourage architectural monotony and encourage good pedestrian design through use of a variety of compatible materials and colors, height and building wall deviations, architectural features, canopies over sidewalks, and pedestrian-scale details. Sidewalks: Sidewalk/bikeway requirements have been clarified to include private streets and off- street parking areas. Signs: Sign standards have been modified to ensure that monument signs do not interfere with pedestrian/bicycle or automobile circulation and visibility. Language has been added to encourage pedestrian-scale signs. • What other Code sections should be amended relating to the “M-X District? Districts & Land Use Table: When the “M-X District was originally adopted, it was not referenced in the “Establishments of Districts” section of the Zoning Code (14:5-1.1) or the “Land Use By Zoning District” table of allowable uses (14:5-2.1, Table 5-2.1A). This should be rectified as part of the proposed amendments. In reviewing the Land Use table, some other necessary changes were noted relating to previous ordinance amendments. These “housekeeping” changes are also included. Sign Code: The Sign Code should also be amended, since it is currently written with the assumption that the districts will be at least 10 acres in size. The total maximum sign area would 31 be reviewed as part of the Redevelopment Plan or PUD, and the maximum size of a single sign face is proposed to be 150 square feet. Live-Work Definition: The Descriptions section of the Zoning Code needs to include a definition of “live-work units” since these could be considered in the “M-X” District (and possibly the “R-C” District). The definition includes certain restrictions that would apply to the use in any zoning district as follows: • no more than 2 workers who do not reside in the unit; • the size of the business cannot exceed the size of the residential use; • customers must have a building entrance that is separate from the entrance to other residential units (i.e., an apartment cannot be converted to a live-work unit unless the apartment unit has a separate exterior entrance and does not depend on a shared hallway); • the business cannot substantially alter the exterior of the building or affect the character of the neighborhood or health, safety and welfare of the residents (i.e., limited traffic impacts, no disruptive noise, etc.); • the business space must be readily convertible to residential space; • no industrial uses allowed; no repair or car service businesses; no pawnshops; no animal handling; no bars, restaurants or private entertainment (pool halls, etc.); and no sexually- oriented businesses; other uses may also be denied if they are inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood or adversely affect nearby residents. • How are live-work units proposed to be further restricted in the “R-C” District The “R-C” District would further restrict live-work units as follows: • adequate parking for both the residential and business use would need to be available; • retail and service uses would be limited to 360 square feet of customer space (this translates to the need for only 2 customer parking spaces); • the business could not operate before 7 a.m. and would have to close by 6 p.m.; • signage would be limited to two square feet and could not be illuminated (this is the same as for home occupations); • a Certificate of Occupancy would be required to ensure that all Zoning and Building Codes were met and there was a record of approval. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend amending the “M-X” Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code to improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the Mixed Use District. Staff and the Planning Commission further recommend amending the “R-C” Ordinance to allow live-work units in high-density residential neighborhoods under certain conditions. This would provide greater opportunities for people to work out of their homes as long as such businesses did not interfere with the character of the high density residential neighborhoods in which they 32 would be located. It would also provide certain local business services to other residents in the area. Attachments (on file in the City Clerk’s office): • Proposed ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated Zoning Code sections; • Proposed ordinance amending the “R-C” District and Land Use table to allow live-work units. Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 33 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of July 6, 1999 8a. Resolution of Commendation to the Park Commons West Task Force Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution in recognition of the dedicated service of the Park Commons West Task Force members. Background: The Park Commons West Task Force included 15 residents and business volunteers from the Park Commons area and nearby neighborhoods. The mission of the Task Force was to make informed recommendations to the City Council regarding the feasibility of implementing the western portion of the Park Commons (Town Center) Concept Plan. The Concept Plan was formulated during a community design charrette in October of 1996. The Task Force was appointed in the Fall of 1997 and held its first meeting in January of 1998. The Task Force had a total of 16 meetings over the course of 18 months. In addition to their appointed mission, the Task Force made recommendations regarding the proposed relocation of the Norwest Bank facility and Comprehensive Plan designations and policies for both Park Commons West and East (Phase One). The Task Force learned a great deal about traffic issues, roadway design, and the needs of various businesses and residents of the area. The Park Commons West Task Force held its final meeting on June 16, 1999. The diverse group worked hard to derive consensus regarding final recommendations for the area. Those recommendations will be brought to a Council Study Session and public Open House for further consideration in the near future. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution of commendation and appreciation to the Task Force. If so adopted, staff will prepare individual resolutions for distribution to each Task Force member. Attachments: • Proposed Resolution Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 34 RESOLUTION NO. 99-80 RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL In Recognition of Dedicated Service Toward Planning the Future of the City of St. Louis Park As Members of the Park Commons West Task Force The City Council Hereby Provides This Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation To Brad Bakken Michelle Bissonnette Rachel Fitzgerald Michael Gould John Heltemes Mary Henning John Herbert Mary Thorpe-Mease Rick Person Fran Rutherford Duane Spiegle Jean Tambornino James Tucker Kirk Whetston Paul Zeigle Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 35 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of July 6, 1999 8b. Second 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: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone the property from “C-2” to “R-C,” adopt the ordinance and authorize publication 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 approval of a Redevelopment Plan 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 the City’s Rec Center. The property is generally located along the northern boundary of the Park Commons redevelopment area. 36 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. On June 21, 1999 the City Council approved First Reading. Issues: • What are permitted uses in the R-C District? • Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Issues Analysis: What are permitted uses 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): 37 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: • Summary Ordinance • Full Ordinance • 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 38 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2139-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD This ordinance states that the property located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard shall be rezoned from C-2 General Commercial to R-C Multi Family Residential. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council July 6, 1999 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: July 14, 1999 39 ORDINANCE NO. 2139-99 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: 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. from C-2 General Commercial to R-C Multi Family Residential. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 40 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of July 6, 1999 8c. Demolition of Certain Structures, Removal of Streets and Utilities, Grading Work and other Related Activities Associated with the Park Commons Redevelopment Project This report authorizes staff to prepare plans and specifications and to undertake advertisement for bids for activities associated with the demolition or removal of certain structures in the Park Commons area. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing Project 99- 11, ordering Project No. 99-11, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Receipt of Bids Background: The EDA has acquired a number of properties in the Park Commons redevelopment project area. It is proposed that existing structures on a number of these properties be removed to facilitate redevelopment in the future. Specific activities which would be undertaken are as follows: • Removal (either by demolition or relocation) of all sixteen single family homes including the former Evelyn Raymond home and related accessory structure. • Removal of the Hoogesteger building (located just east of the Health Club). • Removal of the former Bunny’s building. • Removal of streets, curb and gutter, and utilities located north of 38th/39th Street. (in the vicinity of the single family homes). • Regrading of the area north of 38th/39th Street. • Other related miscellaneous activities (e.g. tree removal) The plans and specifications are written in a way such that the approved contractor will have the option of either physically relocating or demolishing the structures in question. The estimated cost for the aforementioned work is over $500,000. The proposed funding source is Tax Increment. In a related action the EDA will be authorizing the City to undertake the work in question and to transfer the funds necessary to pay for said work. It is proposed that the project be bid out this summer with the work in question to be completed by late this fall. At the earliest, actual private redevelopment activities would occur in 2000. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 41 RESOLUTION NO. 99-81 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 99-11, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO 99-11 AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 99-11 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a proposal from City staff relating to the demolition or relocation of certain EDA owned structures and City utilities/infrastructure in the Park Commons area. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that: 1. The proposed project designated as Project No. 99-11 is hereby established. 2. Project No. 99-11 is hereby ordered. 3. The plans and specifications for making of the improvements prepared under the direction of the Director of Public Works are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than twenty-one days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashiers check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5% of the amount of the bid. 5. The bid shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 42 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d* Meeting of July 6, 1999 *8d. Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 5605 West 36th Street. Recommended Action Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 5605 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner. Background: Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post No. 5632, owner of the commercial building at 5605 West 36th Street has requested that the City authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The Building Code does not require the installation of a fire sprinkler system in this building. The VFW Post 5632 building currently has a partial sprinkling system that the building owners wish to upgrade to full coverage. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to extend the system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on the proposed work the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned to the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and specially assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $5,177.00. An Administrative Fee of $150.00 will be added to the special assessment. Staff has determined the adequate funds are available through the Special Assessment Construction Fund. Attachments: Resolution Contract Prepared by: John Lindstrom, Fire Marshal Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 43 44 Item # 9a* June 25, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 4 SEASONS SWIMWEAR INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,294.50 A-1 TILE & MARBLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,900.00 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 159.56 AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL FOUNDAT GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.95 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 663.83 ARMOR SECURITY INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 55.00 ASIAN PAGES OTHER ADVERTISING 311.75 ASPLUND COFFEE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 205.00 BACHMAN'S LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 743.10 BARON, EILEEN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00 BARTLEY SALES CO INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 47.93 BITTMANN INC, GEORGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,375.42 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.23 BOCHE, BRIDGETT STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 787.25 BOHN WELDING COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 41.96 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 385.40 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 178.02 BRENTS SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 582.56 BRO TEX INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 266.25 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROWN, KAREN RAE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 CALGON CARBON CORPORATION CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 19,046.50 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 170.40 CARLSON, RICHARD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 CENTURY MECHANICAL INC HEATING 93.00 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.00 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 94.68 COMPUSA INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 117.14 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 101.48 CREATIVE DESIGN & FINISH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,000.00 CUB FOODS MEETING EXPENSE 381.37 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.26 DELARIAS KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKE MEETING EXPENSE 773.46 DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 880.63 DICK COMPANY, A B EQUIPMENT PARTS 174.16 DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 500.00 DOVER RESTAURANT MEETING EXPENSE 147.33 DUNDEE NURSERY LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 26.50 DVORAK, BRAD STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 150.70 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 45 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,082.89 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,577.18 EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 91.77 ERICKSON, BRENT SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 60.00 ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 5.22 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 314.19 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FALCON ASSOCIATES INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 201.60 FAUS, KATHY ROBINSON SEASON TICKET-NONRESIDENT 20.00 FERRERIA, TIM INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 FINK, SARAH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69.38 FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 761.20 FONTENOT, NICOLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 56.25 FORSTER, JAY STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,232.56 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,554.02 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 849.72 GLAPA, SHAWN STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 341.00 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 132.77 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 521.50 GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 152.98 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSES/TAXES 4.42 HENNEPIN PARKS GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.63 HOFFER COATINGS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 747.63 HOFFMAN, BRIAN MEETING EXPENSE 52.16 HOLUB, BRIANNA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.50 HOLZ, ANNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.19 HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 489.21 HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 77.78 HOMECARE INC BUILDING 159.80 HONG, KEE-JU UNREALIZED REVENUE 27.00 HONG, KEE-WON UNREALIZED REVENUE 27.00 HONG, YOON-WEE UNREALIZED REVENUE 27.00 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 158.47 ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 40.90 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 146.60 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 740.18 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 198.27 INGRAHAM & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 302.30 INSIGHT NEWS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 344.16 J & F REDDY RENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,021.45 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 249.21 JEZIERSKI, JAMES GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.86 JOHNSON, BILL GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 JOHNSON, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 139.45 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.96) KRAMER, LORIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 550.00 KRECH, BARBARA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 65.00 KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 319.66 46 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,170.00 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 284.03 LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS GENERAL SUPPLIES 175.78 LAWRENCE, MONTE GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 270.00 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 29,607.77 LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 23.40 M P S A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 100.00 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 141.49 MADD TRAVELING EDUCATIONAL EXH GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.00 MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 620.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 528.00 MAYER ELECTRIC CORP ELECTRICAL 93.00 MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 27.73 MCCOLLISTER & CO LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 374.51 MECA SPORTSWEAR UNREALIZED REVENUE 167.82 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.13 MERIT HVAC INC HEATING 58.48 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 14,506.43 METROCALL TELEPHONE 60.72 MIDWEST AQUA CARE LICENSES/TAXES 200.00 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.60 MIDWEST GANG INVESTIGATORS ASS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 7.06 MINNESOTA BOOK STORE GENERAL SUPPLIES 284.13 MINNESOTA WOMEN'S PRESS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 510.00 MN BOARD OF PEACE OFFICER STAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,710.00 MN CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 98.50 MN DEPT OF COMMERCE -NOTRN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,617.00 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 100.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 165.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 509.01 MN RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,042.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.26 NATHENSON & ASSOCIATES, JUDITH GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.15 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 2,786.00 NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 149.10 NORTH STAR CHAPTER-ICBO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 80.00 NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT PARTS 44.25 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 456.94 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 332.92 OLSON, MARGRIT ANNA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 144.38 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,699.01 47 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 7,585.50 PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 158.83 PALM, SHEILA L. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 PANNING, CRAIG GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.50 PAPA JOHNS PIZZA CONCESSION SUPPLIES 86.65 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 203.37 PETERSON, SACHA MEETING EXPENSE 54.93 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.04 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 62.28 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.00 PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY INSURANCE BENEFITS 645.35 QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,720.00 QUANTUM LABS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.65 RADIO SHACK TELEPHONE 31.93 REYES, EMILIA SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 64.00 RICE, SHAWN GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.70 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.97 RODRIGUEZ, EDGARDO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC MOTOR FUELS 6.77 S & S WORLDWIDE GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,395.26 S & T SERVICES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 276.90 SALONEK, MYRON TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 40.09 SCAN AIR FILTER INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 192.63 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 341.95 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24.74 SIGN IMAGES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 23.00 SOLTVEDT, PHILLIP GENERAL SUPPLIES 575.00 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 1.94 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 529.10 ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.13 STANDARD HEATING & A/C OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,150.00 STANDARD PLUMBING GENERAL SUPPLIES 171.65 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.62 STEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 55.81 STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 87.33 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,457.42 SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 935.16 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 275.60 SUPERIOR FORD MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 63,630.00 TAKUMI, VERNICE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 4.65 TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.69 TKDA ENGINEERING SERVICES 338.72 TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 142.80 TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 440.00 U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 422.22 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,166.41 USTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 193.00 VALLEYFAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,900.00 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 727.05 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 397.12 48 VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,044.00 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 12.47 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,759.06 WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 847.91 WILTSHIRE, JOHN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY UNREALIZED REVENUE 250.00 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 313.01 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 239.63 ZEP MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT PARTS 838.71 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.76 273,699.63 July 2, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,458.78 ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 114.76 ADARE CAR & VAN RENTALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,702.40 ADULT OPTIONS IN EDUCATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 131.52 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 32.89 ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.06 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 92.00 AMERICA'S BEST ROOFING INC BUILDING 69.80 ANCHOR PAPER CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 386.43 ANTONSON, DALE STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 156.66 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 574.99 APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 395.74 BARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 142.03 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 52.17 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATOR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 840.00 BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 7,001.12 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,819.97 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 357.88 BRANCH, PEARL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,753.59 BRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 CAHNERS BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 54.00 CAMILON, MANNY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 65.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 348.70 CARLSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 56.43 CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 254.85 CAROUSEL BALLOONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 CARTRIDGE CARE COMPUTER SUPPLIES 298.53 CENTURY LABS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 264.34 49 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 133.55 CHRISTIANS INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,498.00 CLARY BUSINESS MACHINES CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 350.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SMALL TOOLS 132.25 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,789.90 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 196.27 COORDINATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS L GENERAL SUPPLIES 570.36 CP LIMITED OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 102.22 DELMAR FURNACE EXCHANGE HEATING 17.08 DOUD, KEVIN STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 198.60 ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 804.96 ECONOMICS PRESS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 128.50 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,062.00 ERICKSON, DAVID OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.60 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 119.03 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 10.20 FIELDS, MICHAEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 251.45 FLIKEID, TERRY GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.25 FOSTER, EMILY UNREALIZED REVENUE 75.00 FOUR SEASONS TRAVEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 638.00 G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 42.59 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL CINEMA THEATRES GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,503.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 196.52 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 253.68 GOODALL EQUIPMENT PARTS 555.35 GORDON, JARED PROGRAMMING 60.00 GRAINGER INC, W W SMALL TOOLS 244.95 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 145.98 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 15.00 GROSSMAN, MAYER INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 GUGGENBERGER, STEVE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 HARMENING, TOM GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.41 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,797.75 HENNEPIN CO TREASURER POSTAGE 1,113.60 HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.95 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI AWARDS/INDEMNITIES 225.00 ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 195.90 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 680.55 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 3,071.05 INTERQUEST GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.79 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,789.21 50 J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 21.41 JAVNER, JOHN B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 109.43 JUNGERS, MARY E. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KAISER, CINDY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 99.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 180.00 KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 138.02 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.96) KOOSMANN, PAT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KOVATCH MOBILE EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS 164.66 KRAEMER & SONS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 439.44 LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 66.50 LAWRENCE, RANDY GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.50 LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN PRINTING & PUBLISHING 16.51 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 969.00 MCI WORLDCOM TELEPHONE 10.94 MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,065.66 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.06 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 156.52 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 404.34 METRO WATER CONDITIONING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 249.59 METROCALL TELEPHONE 22.81 MEYER, DANIEL J MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 47.74 MILLER, CAROL GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.22 MILLERBERND, DENNIS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 225.00 MINN CO ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.50 MINNESOTA PRIMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 20.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 152.00 MN DEPT OF COMMERCE -NOTRN OFFICE SUPPLIES 360.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MOLBERG, ELIZABETH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,150.00 MORGAN, PAM ELECTRIC SERVICE 87.79 MPLS AREA ASSOC OF REALTORS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 157.62 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 42.58 NATHENSON & ASSOCIATES, JUDITH GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.02 NEXTEL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00 NICHOLS, MARY PROGRAMMING 36.00 NORTHERN LIGHTERS PYROTECTICS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,500.00 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.46 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 375.56 NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 4,965.00 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 231.90 ON SITE SANITATION UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,226.90 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 15.37 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 198.25 PASKOFF, REYNOLD R. NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,092.61 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 242.35 POSTMASTER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 140.62 51 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 28.30 PROEX PHOTO KNOLLWOOD 24001 GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.05 PROTECTION ONE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 338.95 QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 367.52 R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 3,195.04 RAINBOW FOODS MEETING EXPENSE 38.51 RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,779.16 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.98 RECREONICS ETAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 193.20 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000.00 RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 RICHARDS, BRIAN UNREALIZED REVENUE 200.00 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 88.97 ROBICHON'S UNREALIZED REVENUE 450.00 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 720.00 ROSS, SCOTT A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 144.26 ROUSSEAU, LISA-MARIE SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 30.00 SAFETY-KLEEN BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 219.34 SHURSON, MARY CLOTHING - tax exempt 10.00 SJOQUIST ARCHITECTS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 165.00 SMITH, MADDIE SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 32.00 SOHNS, JO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 104.69 SONUS INTERIORS INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,510.00 SPANBAUER, SCOTT T. INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 568.16 ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 9,590.33 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS OTHER ADVERTISING 286.86 STAGES THEATRE CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 336.00 STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 709.20 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.16 STAUNER, MATT SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 49.50 STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 87.33 SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.29 SUPERIOR FORD MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 21,212.00 SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,200.00 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TARGET/DAYTONS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 39.34 TEKSYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 2,960.00 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 900.00 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 6,428.90 TRANBERG, LOREN CLOTHING - tax exempt 30.00 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.39 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 41.02 US FILTER/WATERPRO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,730.80 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 727.05 VARDA COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 152.95 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 121.00 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,534.93 WAYSIDE HOUSE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,944.65 WELDON, PAT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 295.00 WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 192.83 52 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 144.00 WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 179.70 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,478.49 WOLFF, JEFF GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.82 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 39.41 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (44.33) ZIP PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 318.17 ZIP SORT PRINTING & PUBLISHING 252.80 161,685.63 June 29, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 53.55 NORTHWEST ANESTHESIA WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 732.00 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 1,082.40 PDR HOPKINS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 572.27 REILLY, MATTHEW INJURY PAY 738.00 3,178.22 June 30, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 2,262.83 2,262.83 June 30, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 415.00 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,241.00 I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,561.65 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,666.53 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,716.00 MINN COMM OF REVENUE SALES TAX 15,750.00 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 783.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,465.98 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 73.02 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 940.00 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 109,668.46 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 45,777.74 53 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,332.05 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 7,728.36 SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS-LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 29,259.15 TCATH, AMY PROGRAMMING 22.00 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,821.46 245,119.10 54 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #11a* Meeting of July 6, 1999 11a.* Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping – City Project No. 98-15 This report considers awarding a contract for the construction of two (2) City entrance entry signs and site landscaping to Nadeau Utility, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to designate Nadeau Utility, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $158,096.35. Background: At its May 17, 1999 meeting the City Council rejected all bids due to an incomplete bid by the low bidder and directed the project be readvertised. Proposals were received on June 24, 1999, for the construction of two (2) entry signs and site landscaping. The sign locations are at Louisiana Avenue and I-394 and at Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on June 16, and 23, 1999 and in the Construction Bulletin on June 11, and 18, 1999. A total of four (4) companies submitted bids. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid Amount Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 158,096.35* Lund Martin Construction, Inc. $ 158,793.50* Lakeland Nurseries, Inc. $ 168,774.50* Jay Brothers, Inc. $ 182,545.50 Engineer’s Estimate $ 156,000.00 * Denotes Engineer’s correction upon extension Evaluation of Bids: A total of four (4) companies submitted bids. A review of the bids indicates Nadeau Utility, Inc. satisfactorily completed similar sign monument projects for the City of Minnetonka. Staff has determined that Nadeau Utility, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid and recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $158,096.35. Financial Considerations: Funding for these entrance signs is from the Economic Development Fund. No other funding sources are proposed. Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager