Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/07/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 6:30 p.m. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 19, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of July 6, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda. Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s) b. Agenda Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s) *c. Resolutions and Ordinances Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 2 8a. Criminal History Background Checks Amendments to Chapters 3 and 15 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow the police department to perform criminal history checks on managers and tenants of rental property and on new City employees and volunteers. Recommended Action: Motion to waive first reading of ordinance and set second reading for August 2, 1999. 8b. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC Recommended Action: Motion to approve Second Reading of the proposed ordinance, approve ordinance summary, and authorize publication. 8c. Second Reading of Amendments to “M-X” Mixed- Use District Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code Case No. 99-3-ZA Recommended Actions: Motion to approve Second Reading of an ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. 8d. Minor Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 5101 Minnetonka Boulevard Case No. 99-18-CUP Minor amendment to Conditional Use Permit to modify underground parking and utility rooms of a four story, mixed-use commercial and residential building Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to Conditional Use Permit adopted under Resolution 98-161 on December 7, 1998, subject to conditions included in the resolution. 8e*. 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood The Minikahda Vista Neighborhood is a newly organized neighborhood and has submitted a grant application for activities for the remainder of 1999. 3 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreement with the neighborhood officers. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Housing Authority Minutes of June 9, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 24, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *c. June Financial Report Action: By consent, accept report for filing *d. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 4 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 6, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro-tem Latz called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of June 21, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 4b. Study Session Meeting of May 10, 1999 With the following corrections, the minutes were approved as presented. Page 14, Councilmember Sanger asked that her comments be replaced with text she provided to the clerk and read to those present. Change to “Councilmember Sanger stated that this plan seems to be what Metro Transit wants and not what is really needed by St. Louis Park. She pointed out that the plan does not facilitate getting around St. Louis Park, that people would have to make the two or three transfers, and she did not think people would want to do this or let their kids do this. She indicated that this plan is primarily facilitating commuting into downtown Minneapolis and that is not why the study began. She stated that Metro Transit should return the planning monies to St. Louis Park unless they redid the plan to do what was asked”. 4c. Study Session Meeting of May 24, 1999 With the following corrections, the minutes were approved as presented. 5 Page 17, Change the word “educated” to “knowledgable” under Councilmember Nelson’s comments regarding Friends of the Arts. 5. Approval of Agendas Consent Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 6-0. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and recommended that final approval be contingent on dedicating a new 2 foot easement rather than the 20 foot easement that is currently on the lot. Mayor Pro-tem Latz closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future time. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if there was any research done on a previous request for vacation of this easement. Ms. Jeremiah did not believe there had been any previous requests for vacating the easement and indicated that the property had been forfeited for taxes and that Hennepin County recently transferred it to the current property owner. She believed this was the first request for the easement to be vacated. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that there was an issue before the Council when it went tax forfeiture about retaining the large easement on the north side of the parcel and there is a long history involving this lot, but he did not recall anything specifically with this street right of way on the south side. Councilmember Nelson asked if the vacation was contingent upon the granting of the easement presumably at no cost. 6 Ms. Jeremiah stated that Councilmember Nelson was correct and that the property owner would be responsible for all costs regarding the writing of that easement language and the recording of the easement. Mayor Pro-tem Latz stated that the Council had received a letter through the Planning Commission from the property owners adjacent to the piece of property expressing their concerns. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999. The motion passed 6-0. 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 Janet Jeremiah, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the amendments to the “M-X” Mixed-Use District to improve consistency with the new Comprehensive Plan and to reflect what has been learned in the past regarding mixed-use development. Mayor Pro-tem Latz closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future time. Councilmember Sanger had some concerns with respect to the live-work units primarily in the “R-C” District. Her concern was that she was not sure that the definition was tight enough to ensure that business uses that are disturbing to neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and vibration could be prohibited. She said she was a little more willing to consider that in the “M-X” District because that was dense by design and a little less willing to consider that at this time in the “R-C” District. In addition to the effects on neighbors, she was concerned from an economic point of view. She was not sure that anybody would want these units and if the City would start opening our buildings up to units that may not turn out to be a great use of space, she’d like to give them a try first in other areas. She believed that technically there was nothing to ensure that any live- work unit in any district was restricted to the ground floor level and would be particularly concerned if we had buildings where first floors were residential and then there were commercial uses above them. She said if people had live-work units several units high there would be public pedestrian traffic in those private residential hallways and she wanted to see some limitation that the uses be on the first floor. Mayor Pro-tem Latz noted that one of the requirements would be that there be a separate business owned type entrance to the work portion of the live-work unit for patrons. He inquired as to whether that requirement would limit live-work to the ground floor only or whether you could end up with a stairway. 7 Janet Jeremiah stated that the accessibility requirements would generally limit it to the first floor or there would need to be a separate elevator if it was really a very public type of business. She stated that she would look into this and confirm this before second reading. Councilmember Sanger’s concern was there was nothing in the definition to prevent an apartment type unit in a residential building from simply adding a second entrance way to the unit and designate that one unit as being for the public. Councilmember Brimeyer asked Councilmember Sanger to clarify her concern. Councilmember Sanger stated that she thought it was one thing if you have a business use that was very quiet and non-obtrusive, but was more concerned if someone has a business use that has a lot of foot traffic in and out that was noisy or disturbing to residents or that was a noisy use. Councilmember Brimeyer didn’t believe that the live-work units would be conducive to businesses that produced excessive problem and stated that that the live-work unit would be someone’s living environment and they would generally want to accommodate the neighborhood. Councilmember Sanger stated that one of the problems was that we are not defining this sort of business in a way that it was tight enough to limit out some of those things. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the type of businesses people will engage in in the future are not known, but he couldn’t come up with any business that would alarm him. Janet Jeremiah stated that there were several different controls that were built into the definition at this point. If a use was initially approved, and then found to be disruptive, the City could enforce under the language with regard to the health and safety of the residents and substantially altering the character of neighborhood. Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Sanger. He believed that given the existing limits, people would meet or exceed the limits and the City may be fighting battles over these uses. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the City would be trying to legislate against potential bad behavior and he didn’t think the City could do that. Councilmember Nelson stated that he could support this legislation in the “M-X” District as an experiment, but not in the “R-C” District because there was a lot riding on Park Commons. He did not want to potentially handicap the residential portion of that district by allowing businesses to disturb the residents, character of the neighborhood and value of the neighborhood with signage, traffic, hours of operation. With regard to the ability of staff to deny something at its discretion based on whether something conforms, he asked the City Attorney whether or not the City was setting up themselves for some sort of fight as to what discretion staff should have verses what the City really delegates to the staff. Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that typically if there was going to review delegated to staff, it was best that there were fairly specific objective standards for staff to look at to determine 8 whether the proposal met them. He indicated that if they were fairly general standards, staff could potentially build in some sort of review by the Council. Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked if any decision by staff would necessarily be subject to review by Council. Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that as a general rule, if Council disagreed with staff the issue would be presented to Council and applicants could use the Board of Appeals. Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked staff to explain where this use could be located in the Park Commons area. Janet Jeremiah stated that in regard to the objective standards, staff has tried to work a number of very objective standards into the ordinance that would limit the size of the business, the access to the business, the type of business and hours of operation. The more general language with regard to the health, safety and welfare would be for those things that would be unanticipated. There would be some sort of use that under normal circumstances would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, but under the specific characteristics that were proposed or the operation of the use it obviously has become a nuisance. There are noise ordinances that would also provide objective standards. With regard to where the use could be located in Park Commons, the “M-X” District would be most of the Phase I area and the area immediately West of Wolfe Park. With regard to apartments and condominiums they would be subject to their own internal review. Staff would envision the live-work unit more for the row townhomes types of uses. She also indicated that staff would be interested in limiting the business use to the ground level and could make that more specific in the ordinance. Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked if the ordinance allowed for a common entrance to be used for live and work uses of that particular unit. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the particular unit that was housing both a business and the business owner could use a common entrance, however any business customer could not use an entrance that was shared with other residents of either that building or that general area. She stated that until staff started getting some requests, it was going to be hard to anticipate, so if it was over regulated at this point, it could probably be loosened up later or the variance process could be used to adjust it. Councilmember Sanger asked what the process was for limiting disruptions if a use was granted and then turned out to be a nuisance. She questioned what kind of assurance there would be that the City had the ability to limit uses after the fact. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that if a particular use was allowed and problems occurred, unless there was some special provisions that came into play in the context of a redevelopment contract, Council would be looking at the City’s general ordinances to whether or not they violate a particular ordinance like the noise ordinance. Councilmember Sanger stated that this concerned her since the noise ordinance was set so high that it was currently difficult to manage. 9 Mayor Pro-tem Latz stated that it was important that the provisions provide some flexibility. Councilmember Young was concerned about having live-work units and for sale townhouses in Park Commons and was not in favor of the proposal because he believed that the live-work units would lower the value of the property and did not fit with the residential setting. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the Planning Commission had debated this ordinance. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the Planning Commission did “tweak” the ordinance and some of the language, but did not debate it as long and as hard as the Council. The Planning Commission was in favor of promoting greater opportunity in the City for various types of living and working opportunities. Councilmember Brimeyer believed that there was a market for this, but it needed to be regulated so it didn’t impinge on the neighborhoods. He does not want it considered on the basis of the fears of people who have bad behavior. Mayor Pro-tem Latz believed that there should be some kind of flexibility in our residential areas to accommodate where the economy was going and believed there are sufficient protections in the proposed ordinances to prevent disruption to neighborhoods. He used Newberry Street in Boston as an example of success. He indicated that if it would make the Council more comfortable to restrict the business use to ground floor he would be in favor of that. Councilmember Young stated that this ordinance was saying that it was all right for someone to put a sign out in your window and have some type of activity in your home and he was not quite sure he was ready to give that seal of approval in advance on something in a residential area. He did not believe this would prevent the growing areas of the future from happening and that this can still happen in the existing residential environment. Councilmember Nelson stated that the City is on the cutting edge by experimenting with the live- work unit in the “M-X” District, but was not favor of allowing live-work units in the “R-C” District since it would be hard to enforce the restrictions based on nuisance criteria. He would like to encourage the private residential development of Park Commons and not throw potential road blocks or impediments to the value of that district. Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked if it were to be enacted in the “R-C” District and then determined later that the regulations needed to be tightened up a bit because staff didn’t feel that there was sufficient guidance to deal with unanticipated and less desirable uses, could the Council go back and tighten the ordinance and enforce it against the existing use. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that that additional regulations could be imposed, but Council could run into a problem if they were trying to regulate business out of existence. Mayor Pro-tem Latz was concerned that at the time the Council becomes comfortable with the concept of live-work units in the “R-C” District, there may be no practical way to do it because most of the space would be developed. 10 Councilmember Santa believed that the character of the neighborhood which does not exist yet was being discussed and that Council may be anticipating things that were not going to happen. She believed that similar types of businesses would cluster and not compete with each other and the market would prevail in determining what was going to happen. She was reluctant at this point to predict what the City should do when she does not know what the market was going to want. Councilmember Nelson stated that planning was anticipating needs and problems and trying to deal with them pro-actively instead of retroactively. He indicated that if the Council would decide to have live-work units in the “R-C” District later, they would be able to convert existing townhouses to allow them. Mayor Pro-tem Latz indicated in regards to Mayor Jacob’s viewpoint on this issue that the Study Session Minutes of May 24, 1999 contain the following reference “Mayor Jacobs, Councilmember Brimeyer, Councilmember Latz all agreed that St. Louis Park needs to be friendly to the 21st Century worker in new ways of doing business.” It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, 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. The motion passed 5-1. Councilmember Sanger opposed. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, 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. The motion failed 1-5. Councilmember Brimeyer in favor. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Resolution of Commendation to the Park Commons West Task Force Resolution # 99-80 Mayor Pro-tem read a resolution commending all the individuals on the Park Commons West Task Force for their dedicated service. Councilmember Nelson echoed the commendation to the Park Commons West Task Force. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a resolution in recognition of the dedicated service of the Park Commons West Task Force members. The motion passed 6-0. 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 11 Ordinance # 2139-99 Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and recommended approval. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone the property from “C-2” to “R-C”, adopt the ordinance and authorize publication. The motion passed 6-0. 8c. Demolition of Certain Structures, Removal of Streets and Utilities, Grading Work and other Related Activities Associated with the Park Commons Redevelopment Project Resolution #99-81 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt the attached resolution establishing Project 99-11, ordering Project No. 99-11, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Receipt of Bids. The motion passed 6-0. 8d. Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 5605 West 36th Street Resolution #99-82 By consent, Council adopted 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 Claims Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of April 5, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business 10a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) – None 11. New Business 11a. Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping City Project No. 98-15 By consent, Council designated 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 12. Miscellaneous – None 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract Payments – Resolution #99-83 Final Lead Con, Inc. $ 112,020.35 W. 42nd Street/Zarthan Avenue Reservoir Repairs Contract No. 51-98 Partial Hardrives, Inc. $ 124,540.78 Construction Phase 2 Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Avenue to France Avenue Contract No. 14-98 Valley Paving $ 116,882.11 Pavement mill & overlay, and watermain replacement Ford Road from Ford Lane to I0394 North Service Drive It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to accept reports for filing. The motion passed 6-0. 10. Communications – None 11. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. The motion passed 6-0. City Clerk Mayor Pro-tem 13 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of July 19, 1999 8a. Criminal History Background Checks Amendments to Chapters 3 and 15 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow the police department to perform criminal history checks on managers and tenants of rental property and on new City employees and volunteers. Recommended Action: Motion to waive first reading of ordinance and set second reading for August 2, 1999. Background: Manager/Tenant Section Background: Under current state law, owners and managers of rental property are able to conduct criminal history checks on prospective tenants. These checks are currently done through the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Due to the fact that the BCA receives requests for background checks from a number of sources, as well as a policy that does not allow faxed requests, there is a significant delay in processing time. Because of a processing period of up to two weeks, property management companies have expressed their reluctance in using this service. The proposed ordinance authorizes the Chief of Police or designee, to conduct the criminal history background checks currently being done by the BCA, upon request of a management company, for rental properties within the city of St. Louis Park. This ordinance makes reference to a fee for conducting the background check. Currently, St. Louis Park schools are charged five dollars per employee background check performed by the police department. The five-dollar fee structure would also be appropriate for this ordinance. In the future, if the police department incurs increased costs as a result of performing this service, the fee should be changed to reflect any increase in service costs. Analysis: Adoption of the proposed ordinance would accomplish the following: • Allow the police department to conduct the background checks currently being performed by the BCA, facilitating quicker and more convenient service. • Allow the police department to explain and educate property managers on the meaning of returned criminal history background checks, which affirms and enhances this partnership. 14 • Allow for prompt background checks for criminal history that occurred outside of Minnesota. • The ordinance places the City’s Crime Free Multi-housing Program within federal and state recommended guidelines for such programs. City Employee/Volunteer Section Background: The St. Louis Police Department should perform background checks on new city employees and volunteers. The City of St. Louis Park has a significant interest in protecting the general public during the performance of government services. Each year, more than 94 million children, elderly Americans, and individuals with disabilities depend on someone else to look after them. Some of these people are cared for by paid professionals or volunteers from youth or service organizations. However, some care providers abuse the very people they are supposed to be helping. When an individual entrusted with the care of someone abuses that person and then is found to have abused others previously, questions arise. Screening prospective employees and volunteers who may come into contact with children or vulnerable adults is a critical first step to detecting abusers before they can inflict harm. Background check investigations are an effective method of screening used to deter and detect abusive individuals before there is a reoccurrence of harm. The screening process would include a background check on employees or volunteers applying for positions in which they will be required to provide care, treatment, education, training, instruction, and /or recreation to children and or vulnerable adults pursuant to Minnesota State Statute §299C.60-299C.64. The inquiry would be done after finalists and volunteers have consented. Employment or the opportunity to volunteer with the City would be conditional on the positive results of the investigation. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the Ordinance amending chapters three and fifteen of the St. Louis Park Municipal code concerning criminal history background checks on certain individuals. This would allow the St. Louis Park Police Department to perform background checks on rental property managers, tenants, and at the discretion of the City Manager, on all new City employees and volunteers. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Informed Consent Release – Manager/Tenant Informed Consent Release – City employee/volunteer Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer 15 ORDINANCE NO CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS THREE AND FIFTEEN OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter Fifteen of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is amended to include a new Section 15-350 to read: Section 15-350. BACKGROUND CHECKS ON MANAGERS/TENANTS. Subd. 1 Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms have the meaning stated: A. "Background Check" shall mean a search of the criminal history data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. B. "Informed Consent/Waiver Form" means a consent/waiver form approved by the City and meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, Subd. 4(d) as amended. C. "Manager" means an individual who is hired or is applying to be hired by an owner and who has or would have the means, within the scope of the individual's duties, to enter tenants' dwelling units. "Manager" does not include a person who is hired on a casual basis and not in the ongoing course of the business of the owner. D. "Rental Property Designee" means the owner or manager of rental property located within the City which has received a request from a prospective tenant to reside in rental property. E. "Tenant" means an individual who is occupying or is applying to occupy a dwelling, under any agreement, whether oral or written, and for whatever period of time, which requires the payment of money as rent for the use of the dwelling, and all other regular occupants of that dwelling, and any resident of a manufactured home park. 16 F. "Owner" means the owner or owners of rental property, or any other person, firm or corporation directly or indirectly in control of rental property. Subd. 2. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this Section to protect and preserve the City's neighborhoods, and to protect the overall public health, safety, welfare and morale of City residents by providing a system at the local level for background checks of Managers and Tenants of rental property through use of the criminal history data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 3. Manager/Tenant Background Check. A Rental Property Designee may request the Police Department to conduct a background check on a Manager of rental property or a Tenant. The request shall be on a form approved by the City and accompanied with an Informed Consent/Waiver Form executed by the Manager or Tenant. The Police Department shall perform the background check by retrieving data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 4. Fees. All requests under Subdivision 3 shall be accompanied by a fee to be fixed and determined by the Council. The fee may, from time to time, be amended by the Council by resolution. Subd. 5. City Immunity. The City is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise arise, based on the accuracy or completeness of records it receives from the criminal justice information system computers, if the City acts in good faith. SECTION 2. Chapter Three of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is amended to include a new Section 3-209 to read: Section 3-209. BACKGROUND CHECKS OF VOLUNTEERS AND NEW CITY EMPLOYEES. Subd. 1 Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms have the meaning stated: A. "Background Check" shall mean a search of the criminal history data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. B. "Informed Consent/Waiver Form" means a consent/waiver form approved by the City and meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, Subd. 4(d) as amended. 17 Subd. 2. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this Section to assure safe park and recreation programs, and to protect the overall public health, safety, welfare and morale of City residents by providing a system at the local level for background checks of City volunteers and new City employees through use of the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 3. City Volunteer Background Check. The City Manager or the Manager's designee considering use of a volunteer may request the Police Department to conduct a background check on a prospective volunteer for any City sponsored event or for any volunteer position with the City. The request shall be accompanied with an Informed Consent/Waiver Form executed by the prospective volunteer. The Police Department shall perform the background check by retrieving and reviewing data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 4. New Employees. The City Manager or the Manager's designee may request the Police Department to conduct a background check on a prospective new employee. The request shall be accompanied with an Informed Consent/Waiver Form executed by the prospective employee. The Police Department shall perform the background check by retrieving and reviewing data maintained in the criminal justice information system computers. Subd. 5. City Immunity. The City is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise arise, based on the accuracy or completeness of records it receives from the criminal justice information system computers, if the City acts in good faith. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its publication. 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 18 City of St. Louis Park Informed Consent-Release for Criminal History Manager/Tenant The following named individual has completed a rental/employment application for _________________________ _____________________________________________________________, St. Louis Park, MN 554____________ Name___________________________________________________ Date of Birth________________________ Last First Middle (Mo./ Date/Year) Address_____________________________________________________________________________________ Street Apt # ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City State Zip Drivers License Number___________________________________ State of Issuance______________________ Sex M____ F_____ Social Security Number ______-____-_______ Signature______________________________________________ Date_______________ I authorize the City of St. Louis Park to disclose criminal history record information to , St. Louis Park, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute 299C.68 for the purpose of completing a background check on a potential property manager or tenant. By signing this consent form, I release and the City of St. Louis Park from any and all actions and causes of action, of every kind and nature whatsoever, past, present and future, arising out of the release of the information obtained with this consent. Date: Signature of Applicant In consideration of the records search services provided by the City of St. Louis Park, hereby releases the City of St. Louis Park from any and all actions and causes of action, of every kind and nature whatsoever, past, present and future, arising out of the use of the information obtained with this consent. Date: Authorized owner signature For Police Department Use Only Minnesota Drivers License MINCIS/NCIC Hennepin Warrants ____ Valid _____Clear _____Clear ____See Attached Ramsey Warrants _____Clear Criminal History Search _____No Criminal History Exists Completed By_________________ _____Criminal History Exists Date Processed________________ 19 City of St. Louis Park Informed Consent-Release for Criminal History City Employee/Volunteer The City Of St. Louis Park has a significant interest in protecting the general public during the performance of government services. Because the position for which you are applying will require you to provide care, treatment, education, training, instruction, and/or recreation to children and/or vulnerable adults, the City will perform a background check pursuant to MN State Statutes 299C.60-299C.64 You may refuse to authorize the release of this information, however a failure to do so will result in disqualification as either an employee or a volunteer. The City of St. Louis Park is offering you employment conditional on the positive results of the investigation. I hereby authorize the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, to obtain, and the State of Minnesota to release, all information in the State Of Minnesota Criminal Justice Information System regarding the undersigned. I hereby release the City of St. Louis Park and the State of Minnesota from any claims or damages which I might have as a result of the City obtaining this information from the state. This authorization is effective for three months following the date of execution. This information is being requested by the City to determine whether I am disqualified from being an employee or volunteer for the City. Under Minnesota law, the City can disqualify a person from employment because of a criminal conviction only if the conviction directly relates to the proposed job. I understand that if I am disqualified as a candidate for the position I have applied for on the basis of a criminal conviction, I will be notified in writing and will be given any rights to processing of complaints or grievances afforded by Minnesota Statute, Chapter 364. This information is classified as private personnel data and will be provided only to those City employees or agents who have a need to review it. The City will not release the information to any other party unless required to do so by subpoena or court order pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 13. Name___________________________________________________ Date of Birth___________________ Last First Middle (Mo./ Date/Year) Address_______________________________________________________________________________ Street Apt # ______________________________________________________________________________________ City State Zip Drivers License Number___________________________________ State of Issuance_________________ Sex M____ F_____ Social Security Number ______-____-_______ Signature______________________________________________ Date_______________ For Police Department Use Only Minnesota Drivers License MINCIS/NCIC Hennepin Warrants ____ Valid _____Clear _____Clear ____See Attached Ramsey Warrants _____Clear Criminal History Search _____No Criminal History Exists Completed By_________________ _____Criminal History Exists Date Processed________________ 20 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of July 19, 1999 8b. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC Recommended Action: Motion to approve Second Reading of the proposed ordinance, approve ordinance summary, and authorize publication. 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. The ordinance vacating the present easement would take effect only upon granting of the new two foot easement. 21 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 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 proposed ordinance and summary ordinance. Attachments: • Proposed ordinance • Proposed summary 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 22 ORDINANCE NO. 2140-99 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 fronting upon the portion 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 portion of the utility easement described below 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 portion of the 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. Section.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 of Lot 2, Block 1, “J. F. Lyons 4th Addition”, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying West of the East 35 feet thereof. Adopted by the City Council July 19, 1999 Reviewed for Administration 23 City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 24 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2140-99 AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTION OF UTLITY EASEMENT 2902 FLAG AVENUE SOUTH This ordinance states that a portion of the utility easement on the property located at 2902 Flag Avenue South shall be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council July 19, 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 28, 1999 25 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of July19, 1999 8c. Second Reading of Amendments to “M-X” Mixed- Use District Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code Case No. 99-3-ZA Recommended Actions: Motion to approve Second Reading of an ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code, approve summary ordinance, and authorize publication. Background: On February 24, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated amendments to the “M-X” District. The amendments were intended to improve consistency with goals for the districts based upon Task Force initiatives and the new Comprehensive Plan. During the May 24, 1999 Study Session, 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 in the “R-C” District. On June 2, 1999, the Planning Commission formally recommended the amendments to the “M- X” District ordinance. The Planning Commission also recommended adopting a definition for live-work units and updating other associated sections of the Zoning Code such as the land use table and sign ordinance. On July 6, 1999 the City Council held a public hearing and considered the proposed amendments to the “M-X” District and associated sections of the Zoning Code. The Council approved First Reading of the proposed “M-X” Ordinance on a vote of 5-1. The Council also revisited a previously continued item regarding standards for live-work units in the “R-C” High-Density Multiple Family District. A motion to approve live-work units in the “R-C” District under certain conditions failed on a vote of 1-5. Therefore, the “R-C” Ordinance has not been included for further consideration at this time. Issues: • What properties would likely be rezoned to “M-X” in the future? • Would any existing uses become non-conforming? 26 • 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? 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); • 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? 27 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. 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. 28 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. 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. 29 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 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. Attachments: • Proposed ordinance amending the “M-X” District and associated Zoning Code sections (on file in the City Clerk’s office); • Proposed Summary for Publication Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 30 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2141-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 14:5-1.1, 14:5-2.1 (Table 5-2.1A), 14:5-3.2, 14:6-2 (Table 6-2A) AND 14:5-8 This ordinance states that the Mixed Use District and associated sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the Mixed Use District. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council July 19, 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 28, 1999 99-3sum/N/res/ord 31 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d Meeting of July 19, 1999 8d. Minor Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 5101 Minnetonka Boulevard Case No. 99-18-CUP Minor amendment to Conditional Use Permit to modify underground parking and utility rooms of a four story, mixed-use commercial and residential building Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to Conditional Use Permit adopted under Resolution 98-161 on December 7, 1998, subject to conditions included in the resolution. Zoning: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Background: On December 7, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution 98-161 granting a Conditional Use Permit to Park Land Company to construct a four-story mixed use commercial and residential building on a 1.08 acre site at 5101 Minnetonka Boulevard, the former Nevens Cleaners site. The proposal was to build 11,212 square feet of retail and a small amount of office space on the first floor and thirty-two apartments in three stories above. Residential parking would be provided in an underground structure. The commercial entrances would face Minnetonka Boulevard and Raleigh Avenue and the residential entrance would be on the south side of the building with residential vehicle access from Raleigh Avenue. This proposal utilizes many “livable communities” design principles contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It is a transit- oriented, mixed-use development that efficiently increases land use intensity and effectively reuses a polluted site. It also utilizes pedestrian connections, architectural detail and materials that promote a human scale. Park Land Company is requesting a minor amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to reduce the number of dwelling units from 32 to 29 units, to modify the underground parking garage, and to relocate the community room, residential entrance and storage area. In the original plans, the underground parking was located both under the building and under the commercial parking lot. The new proposal reduces the parking below the parking lot by relocating the storage, residential entrance, and the community room to the south of the building. The new proposal also increases residential unit size in order to market the units as condominiums. 32 On October 22, 1998, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted two variances. One to allow increased building height in the C-1 Zoning District and the other to reduce required parking. Recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have reduced the parking requirements for the proposed use, and consequently, the parking variance is no longer considered necessary. The City and applicant have also applied for and received a $513,000 grant from Dept. of Trade and Economic Development and Metropolitan Council to mitigate pollution on the site. This grant will cover costs related to soil contamination and removing asbestos from the existing building during demolition. Issues: • Are the proposed changes consistent with the original approvals for the project? • Does the proposal meet the Zoning Ordinance conditions for a minor amendment? • Does the proposal meet all code requirements? Issue Analysis Are the proposed changes consistent with the original approvals for the project? The proposed minor amendment is intended to reduce overall costs and to create attractive residential condominium units. The proposal substantially reduces costs by eliminating a number of underground parking spaces originally designed under the commercial parking lot. This was accomplished by moving some functions to a small addition on the south side of the building. This addition will contain the residential entrance, locker space, and community room, thereby freeing up space under the main structure for additional parking spaces. The applicant is also proposing to reduce the number of residential dwelling units from 32 to 29, and increasing the size of the units. The applicant states that it is necessary to increase the unit size in order to market the residential units as condominiums. When the project was initially approved, the applicant was contemplating that the residential units would be rental. The changes do not effect the overall appearance of the building, or reduce the quality of the architectural design, landscaping, or construction materials. Staff concludes that the changes are consistent with the appearance and concept of the original approved plan. Does the proposal meet the Zoning Ordinance conditions for a minor amendment? The Zoning Ordinance allows for minor amendments to a Conditional Use Permit if the proposed changes or modifications do not have an effect on required parking, required yards, floor area ratios, ground floor area ratios, signage, building height, density, covenants or agreements required by the original Conditional Use Permit, or changes in Conditional Use Permits issued in the FW, FF, or FP floodplain districts. Minor amendments are those which are approved by the City Council without recommendation from the Planning Commission. 33 The proposed changes reduce the density and required parking. There is no change to building height, signage, or covenants or agreements required by the original Conditional Use Permit. The floor area ratio and ground floor area ratios are increasing, but only to the same extent as the decrease in the area occupied by underground parking. Internal building spaces have also been reconfigured which increases potential for retail and office space. This increase does not impact parking because of changes in the Zoning Ordinance since the original approval. The project is not located in a floodplain district. Staff concludes that the proposal meets the conditions for a minor amendment. Does the proposal meet all code requirements? The proposed amendments have been reviewed by staff, and have been found to meet all code requirements, except that the lighting plan shows light levels that are higher than allowed along Raleigh Avenue. . Attachments: Resolution Revised site plan (A1) Revised floor plans (A2 through A6) Revised building elevations (A7, A8) Revised building section (A9) Revised grading and drainage (C1) Revised utility (C2) (all plans on file in City Clerk’s office) Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 34 RESOLUTION NO. 99-84 Amends Resolution 98-161 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-161 ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 7, 1998 AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14:5-5.2D OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE (COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL) DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 5101 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD FINDINGS WHEREAS, Helen Brooks (Park Land Company) has made application to the City Council for a conditional use permit under Section 14:5-5.2D of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow construction of a mixed-use (commercial/residential) development consisting of a four story building with the ground floor containing retail/service, residential above and an underground garage at 5101 Minnetonka Boulevard within a C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District having the following legal description: The East 235 feet of the North 233 feet of the West 250 feet of the following described premises, namely: the West 5/8 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the East 1/8 of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, excepting that portion taken for road or highway purposes. (Torrens) WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 98-37-CUP and 99-18-CUP and the effect of the proposed mixed-use development on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 98-161 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated December 7, 1998 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 98-161 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 98-37-CUP and 99-18-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. 35 CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 98-161 (Document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting the construction of a mixed use (commercial/residential) development consisting of a four story building with the ground floor containing retail/service, residential above and an underground garage within the C- 1 Neighborhood Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits A through L, Exhibit A to be revised as required by the Zoning Administrator, such documents incorporated by reference herein. (all exhibits replaced 7-19-99 except Exhibit H – Survey) 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the applicant shall: a. Work with staff to ensure that bufferyard requirements are met along the south property line, and submit any revisions to Exhibit A, Landscape Plan, as required by the Zoning Administrator; (deleted July 19, 1999) b. Submit evidence of Watershed District approval and any other necessary permits from other agencies; c. Submit financial surety to cover repair and cleaning of Raleigh Avenue. d. Sign the assent form and official exhibits (to be signed by owner as well). 3. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall submit as-built drawings of the relocated public utilities under Raleigh Avenue, which shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 4. The conditional use permit shall be amended on July 19, 1999 (Case No. 99-18- CUP) to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit AA – Site Plan, BB – Elevations - Page 1; CC Elevations - Page 2; DD – Grading Plan; EE – Utility Plan; and FF – Lighting Plan (FF to be revised as required by Zoning Administrator); such documents incorporated by reference herein. b. Applicant shall work with staff to insure that light levels along property line at Raleigh Avenue do not exceed 1.0 foot candles. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 19, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 36 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e* Meeting of July 19, 1999 8e*. 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood The Minikahda Vista Neighborhood is a newly organized neighborhood and has submitted a grant application for activities for the remainder of 1999. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant for the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute grant agreement with the neighborhood officers. Background: Fourteen neighborhood organizations requested funding from the neighborhood revitalization grant program prior to the yearly deadline in March of 1999. Because the amount requested was less than the amount available, Council agreed to allow an exception to the deadline for neighborhoods which became organized after March 1999. The Minikahda Vista Neighborhood had an informational meeting in the spring of 1999 and became officially organized when they held elections for their steering committee in June of 1999. They have decided to keep their activities simple for their first year. Their plans include hosting one neighborhood gathering and producing two newsletters. Staff Recommendation: The Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Grant Application did not have the opportunity to be reviewed by the Grant Review Committee this spring. However, their proposed activities are similar in nature to the variety of activities that were recommended by the Grant Review Committee and approved by City Council in past years grant cycles. Approval of the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Grant for the amount of $4658.40 is recommended. Attachments: Resolution Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Application Prepared by: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 37 RESOLUTION NO. 99-85 RESOLUTION APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE 1999 NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION GRANT PROGRAM AWARDS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE RECIPIENT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council appropriated $40,000 in grant funds for the 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Program for organized neighborhoods to promote and enhance community building and leadership activities; and WHEREAS, applications from fourteen neighborhood associations were received on March 19, 1999, that requested funds for neighborhood projects; and WHEREAS, City Council has encouraged neighborhoods organized after the March 19t, 1999 grant application deadline to apply for remaining Neighborhood Revitalization Grant Funds; and WHEREAS, The Minikahda Vista Neighborhood is a newly organized neighborhood and has requested funds for activities similar to activities approved for other neighborhoods; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves funding for the Minikahda Neighborhood for the amount of $658.40 and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the neighborhood: Adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1999 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 38 Item # 9a* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY St. Louis Park, Minnesota June 9, 1999 – 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy Bridget Gothberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Walter Hartman, Shone Row STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Joanna Brownstein, Nancy Sells OTHERS PRESENT: Greg Esterman, Director of Development-Midwest, Avalon Bay Janet Jeremiah, Project Manager Gary Wilson, Mpls./St. Paul Mgmt., Avalon Bay 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1999 Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the minutes of May 12, 1999. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business a. Park Commons – Discussion with Avalon Bay Developer and Property Manager Ms. Jeremiah stated that since her presentation to the Authority last month, progress has been made on the acquisition of single family homes. Ms. Jeremiah said that staff has been working on the financials of the project with the EDA 39 financial consultants. Staff will be providing the City Council with a financial presentation on June 14. Mr. Esterman introduced himself and Mr. Wilson. He provided background on Avalon Bay Communities. Mr. Wilson provided additional information about Avalon Bay. Commissioner Gavzy asked what projects Avalon Bay has developed or managed in the Twin Cities. Mr. Wilson responded that in the Twin Cities there are three communities that Avalon developed and two communities that the company acquired in early 1998. These total approximately 1,350 suburban market rate units. Commissioner Gavzy asked if Avalon Bay had experience with a new urbanist development in a traditional suburb like St. Louis Park. Mr. Wilson responded that there isn’t a lot of this kind of new redevelopment in suburbs, but that it is a product type that is gaining considerable interest. Commissioner Gavzy asked if Mr. Wilson would be involved in the management of the Park Commons project. Mr. Wilson responded that he would be. Ms. Brownstein asked Mr. Wilson to address some of the logistical details of an on-site office for the Park Commons project. Mr. Wilson said that he envisioned that management staff would include a senior community manager; marketing, leasing, administrative services staff; part-time administrator/accounting staff and four full-time maintenance staff. He said this could be supplemented by housekeeping staff depending on the final design. Ms. Brownstein commented that Housing staff would be meeting with Mr. Wilson in the next six months to one year. She added that it is not clear how many assisted units the City Council wants to consider for the development. Ms. Brownstein said that as part of the Hollman requirements, the board would be party to an Initial Agreement which will outline the roles of the Authority, HUD, Avalon Bay, and the EDA. Authority staff will be involved in discussions regarding waiting list questions and the recertification process. Commissioner Gavzy asked Ms. Jeremiah how recent staff changes would affect the project. Ms. Jeremiah responded that losing Ms. Brownstein, Housing 40 Coordinator, and Mr. Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator, is very significant, but that much of the project is currently underway. b. Home Renewal – Authorize Execution of Development Agreements 2808 Georgia Ave and 3405 Rhode Island Avenue Ms. Brownstein distributed preliminary designs of the proposed houses. She explained that staff is still working with both developers, so although the Authority is being asked to authorize execution of the agreements, the agreements will not be signed until preliminary designs have been approved. Ms. Brownstein said that she has just received the plans for the house which will be built on 3401 Rhode Island, which adjoins the Home Renewal lot. Staff will not be imposing design guidelines on the 3401 Rhode Island project. Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority authorize execution of development agreements with Initial Investment I for the development of the property at 2808 Georgia Ave. S. and with Al Stobbe Homes, Inc. for the development of the property at 3405 Rhode Island Ave. S., in accordance with the guidelines of the Home Renewal Program. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. c. PHMAP Resolution No. 461 Ms. Anderson said that figures for Indicators #3 and #6 have just been received from the fee accountant. Commissioner Gavzy asked if these figures would be available on a more timely basis when the City provides accounting services. Ms. Anderson responded that hopefully it wouldn’t be a problem but that the PHMAP deadline of May 30 is very difficult to meet. Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of Resolution No. 461 concerning the Public Housing Management Assessment Program for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1999 for Projects MN144001, MN144002, MN144004, MN144005, and MN144007. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. 41 d. RAFS – Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization Ms. Anderson provided background on the program, noting that RAFS, which is administered by MHFA, was modeled after the Authority’s previous MAX 200 program. Commissioner Courtney asked why termination would be effective September 1 if there were only a 30-day notice requirement for termination. Ms. Brownstein responded that she believes it provided transitional assistance to the families that will be terminated. Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority authorize written notices to MHFA and Employment Action Center to terminate the RAFS Agreement effective September 1, 1999. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. e. TRAILS Contract Commissioner Gothberg said that she was pleased that funding for TRAILS was secured for another year. Commissioner Gavzy mentioned his conversation with Mr. Harmening regarding why the report didn’t specifically identify funding amounts. Ms. Anderson responded that staff needs to review the various funding schedules so this can be more clearly defined. Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Housing Authority authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to execute the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Employment Action Center to administer the TRAILS program for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. f. Accounting Contract with City of St. Louis Park Ms. Anderson reported that she and Ms. Rinta, City Accountant, recently attended accounting software training. Ms. Anderson explained that the fee accountant would provide assistance through August 1 during the transition to City- provided accounting services. Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority authorize the Chair and Executive Director to enter into an agreement with the City of St. Louis Park for 42 the provision of accounting services to the Housing Authority. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. g. TOP Grant Agreement Ms. Anderson said that the Housing Authority attorney reviewed the agreement. A new signature page was prepared which indicates that the Authority acknowledges the agreement between HUD and the Hamilton House Club. She said that the Club was added to the Authority’s insurance policy at no extra cost. Commissioner Courtney moved that the Authority authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to sign as Contract Administrator in acknowledgement of the Tenant Opportunities Program Technical Assistance Grant Agreement between HUD and the Hamilton House Club. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 99-6 Commissioner Courtney moved approval of Claims List 99-6 as amended in the amount of $137,171.05. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. b. Communications (1) Monthly Report for June, 1999 The report was accepted and filed. (2) Walt Hartman resignation Ms. Sells reported that the City Manager’s office is proceeding on replacing Mr. Hartman on the board. Interviews have not yet been arranged. Commissioners were encouraged to submit the names of possible candidates to Cindy Larsen, Assistant to the City Manager. 43 (3) Scattered Site Units Ms. Anderson reported on a recent eviction proceeding. (4) Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program Update Ms. Brownstein reported that 1454 Jersey is being purchased for the Home Renewal Program. She said that the current First Time Homebuyer Program started in June and information packets will be mailed out soon. Commissioner Gavzy commented on the current strong housing market and how this could affect the First Time Homebuyer program. Ms. Brownstein responded that one of the problems with the program is that it does have a rather low price limit. She added that the program also has fairly stringent income restrictions. Ms. Brownstein reported that the first Home Renewal House, which is located at 2814 Blackstone Ave., is currently on the market. She said that the selling price is $169,000. 7. Other Commissioners expressed their thanks to Ms. Brownstein for her outstanding work with the Authority and wished her well in her new position with the Minnesota Housing Partnership. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Gothberg moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Gothberg voting in favor. Respectfully submitted, _______________________ Walter Hartman Secretary 44 Item # 9b* MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING St. Louis Park, Minnesota June 24, 1999 City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: James Gainsley, Susan Bloyer, Anthony Reel, Paul Roberts, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes dated May 25, 1999. Corrections to Minutes: Page 8 change to “Mr. Robertson stated” instead of “Mr. Reel stated”. Second request by Mr. Reel – the reason for voting against the variance was removed and would like to have it put into the Minutes. Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated May 25, 1999. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: None 3. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 5-99 VAR – The request of St. Luke’s Lutheran Church for a variance at 4073 Webster Avenue from the requirements of Sections 14:5- 4.3(F)(5) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a religious institution 9.67 feet from residential lot line instead of the required 25 feet for property located in the “R-2” Single Family District. Mr. Moore presented a staff report and concluded that since all seven criteria have been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit a religious institution 9.67 feet from residential lot line instead of the required 30 feet and a rear yard setback of 18 feet instead of the required 25 feet be approved. Chair Gainsley asked what assurances could be put in place so the two uses will not conflict with one another. 45 Mr. Moore stated because a property line will exist between the two buildings doesn’t affect how the property is being used. It is hard to see how tearing down a single family home and building a new one is changing what is there right now except changing the configuration. The zoning requirements would have to be complied with should the decision be made to add on to the dwelling. Mr. Reel asked if the home is owned by the church and if it would be possible to sunset it if the ownership every changed. Mr. Moore stated yes the home is owned by the church and it would not be possible to sunset it because it cannot be done on the ownership of the land. Chair Gainsley asked if the property is currently conforming. Mr. Moore stated it is not conforming because there are two principal buildings on one piece of property require a conditional use permit. Chair Gainsley asked the way it is now, if the people sought to extend the usage by building on, what would be the procedure? Would there have to be a variance to intensify the usage? Mr. Moore stated no, it is a single family home, the parcel meets the minimum width and area requirements, and all that would need to be done is submit plans. Chair Gainsley stated it is still two principal buildings on a single piece of property. Mr. Moore stated there are two uses. Expanding the building would not be expanding the use itself. There are two principal buildings on a piece of property. If an additional single family home were built then it would be an expansion of the non- conformity. Just by placing an addition onto the home or the church would not be classified as increasing or intensifying the non-conformity. Mr. Robertson asked if there was any reason to not have the rear lot line twenty-five feet behind the garage other than there is a fence there. Mr. Moore stated the north side of the property is being widened out in order to have ingress and egress, there will be an easement to keep the titles as clear as possible and that is the reason for pushing the rear lot line to the fence so there would be no ambiguity as to who owns what. For cleanliness of legal descriptions it was the intent to keep it at the fence, leave the parking lot in sole ownership of the church so there would be no conflict now or in the future. Chair Gainsley asked what the distance is between the two structures. Mr. Moore stated the total distance is approximately 21.5 feet. 46 Mr. Roberts asked what is the side yard setback on the single family home. Mr. Moore stated it would only be 5 feet. Mr. Roberts stated there is a single car garage now and if they were to put an addition to the garage to make it a two-car garage, would it require a variance. Mr. Moore stated he did not think they could put an addition onto the garage because they would be encroaching into the access of the church parking lot next to the garage. Chair Gainsley asked about a tandem garage. Mr. Moore stated if they would build a tandem garage going to the east, they would need a new variance. However, they could build forward without requiring a variance. Chair Gainsley stated if a variance were given at that point it would be for non- conforming structures. Mr. Moore stated both properties would become conforming with the variance. Chair Gainsley asked when the split is accomplished, will the property be sold. Roger Johnson, Executive Director for St. Luke’s Lutheran Church stated it is the intention to sell the property to the current renters. Chair Gainsley stated it is conceivable that at some point the property could be sold to somebody who has no connection with the church at all. Mr. Johnson stated one of the conditions of the sale will be the church’s right of first refusal. Chair Gainsley stated there are no covenants that run this. Mr. Johnson stated the church has asked only for the right of first refusal and the easement for the egress. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Mr. Reel moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded that the variance be granted. Motion passed 5-0 with Gainsley, Bloyer, Roberts, Robertson and Reel in favor. Mr. Moore stated the variance would go into effect 10 days after today’s date to allow for an appeal period for anyone who is aggrieved by this decision. 47 b. Continuance of Case No. 3-99 VAR – The request of the Jewish Family and Children Services (Jeff Fine) for a variance from Section 14:5-5.3(c) (1)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit no outdoor sitting and exercise areas instead of the required 150 square feet per person under treatment for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District at 7916 Minnetonka Boulevard. Mr. Moore stated the document handed out was prepared by Jim Yarosh who is representing the Jewish Family Children’s Services in the case heard last month regarding the usable outdoor exercise area for the adult daycare facility at 7916 Minnetonka Boulevard. During the original meeting there were certain sections of either State Statute or Minnesota licensing requirements that were questioned as to how City of St. Louis Park could require above and beyond what was being required by State Statute and licensing requirements. It is believe that what the document is stating are individual court cases where situations like this have been overruled that the City could not require something in excess of State Statutes or State requirements. Excerpts of a letter from Tom Scott, City Attorney, were read. Chair Gainsley stated having heard that the Board should then review the case based on the City’s requirements. Mr. Moore stated it is the City Attorney’s opinion that there are no restraints. Mr. Roberts stated the reasons this case was tabled last month was to see if an arrangement could be worked out with Fine Management involving property swapping and if the City Council provided any direction on the study to be done on this area. Has there been any movement forward on these. Mr. Moore stated the applicant will address the first issue, and the second answer is a study will be conducted in the year 2000 for that area. Chair Gainsley stated basically the City Council provided no direction. Mr. Moore stated the study would include this piece of property as well. If the variances were granted and the building occupied by this use, the study will include this piece of property. The study may indicate that this use stays or it may indicate the use goes. Chair Gainsley asked about the other issue. Mr. Moore stated the applicant would address that. Mr. Reel stated the Board should not let the study be a consideration and given the findings of the City Attorney regarding the preemption, that it also not be factored into what is being studied now. 48 Jim Yarosh, Attorney addressed the legal issue of preemption. He stated the concept of preemption is not difficult, it basically means that the State law has so thoroughly occupied an area or appeal of law that there is no room for local regulation. (Mr. Yarosh sited a case and distributed copies of a handout to the Board.) The section pointed out in the handout referred to structured exercise program. The State doesn’t have to have a specific regulation on exercise. It is simply if a local ordinance attempts to impose additional requirements in the area where State law exists, even if it doesn’t duplicate or directly conflict with any provisions of the State law, the City regulation cannot stand. There is State law as to what adult day care licensed centers are required to have. Chair Gainsley stated that the City Attorney has rendered an opinion on this and that is what the Board must follow. Stuart Chazin stated he talked with Mr. Fine and Mr. Moore about the parking. Mr. Moore said if the JFCS did take part of the parking lot the City would require it to be landscaped and remove the blacktop. Mr. Fine would not agree to the parking lot being taken up which is needed for the shopping center across the way. Mr. Yarosh explained there are regulations that occur at the State level for adult day care facilities. There is some merit to the applicant’s argument. In effect, the Board can determine by granting this variance that the City doesn’t have the power to put these additional regulations on. This is a good use and there is no other use like this in the City. Chair Gainsley asked if square footage numbers were given in the handout. Mr. Yarosh stated there is no mention of any requirement for an outdoor exercise area. The point of the preemption concept is it doesn’t have to say anything about exercise, if the area has been so thoroughly regulated at the state level it can be concluded that they didn’t feel outdoor exercise was necessary. In this instance the individuals being dealt with have Alzheimer’s or forms of dementia and it may not be appropriate to have a large group of these people outside exercising. Mr. Robertson stated being familiar with this document and with the square foot requirements, the difference between adult day care and children’s day care is none. Chair Gainsley stated there is no statement , which says it, can’t be more restrictive. Mr. Yarosh stated that is the point of the preemption. When the State so thoroughly regulates an area, there is no room for any local regulations. To the extent the City tries to add some additional regulation in the area, it is void. Mr. Reel stated he is not finding how licensing requirements supercede zoning requirements and space requirements that are not at all specifically mentioned or even alluded to in the State Statute. 49 Mr. Yarosh read a portion of the State Statute and pointed out that the 150 sq. foot requirement is not going to directly conflict with anything that was given to the Board. Mr. Reel stated that if the State has so regulated an industry that the most the City can do is say we allow that type of building in this area and no other zoning laws can apply. Mr. Yarosh stated he did not fully understand the question. Mr. Reel stated the applicant is making the case that DHS (Department of Human Services) has so fully regulated this industry in licensing that the City has no authority to make zoning ordinances. What differentiates ordinances from height requirements on an adult facility or any other zoning requirements on adult care facilities? Mr. Yarosh stated the City ordinance at issue talks about 150 sq. feet for an exercise area. The exercise area is part of the program requirements and there is no mention of outdoors. That issue is fully regulated. For setback requirements, the City would still have the power on the type of zoning. Chair Gainsley stated that what is at issue is the mode of application. The State law looks at the application of a program and the City is looking at the application of the land. The 150 sq. ft. is a land usage in terms of an application of that usage. Mr. Yarosh stated it doesn’t have to directly conflict to be preempted. Chair Gainsley stated the Board would take the position that the City can impose a 150 sq. ft. limit. Mr. Yarosh stated in light of the other aspects regarding this property, this is just another point. Chair Gainsley stated the Board would regard this as the St. Louis Park Ordinance being an effective vehicle in regard to 150 sq. ft. requirement for outdoor space. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Mr. Robertson stated the last time the Board discussed this, the variance can be issued if it is felt the ordinance wasn’t written fully understanding the use or the difference between the medical and social model. It does lend good argument for the medical model that the outdoor area is not really necessary and it is questionable and would feel comfortable granting a variance. Ms. Bloyer stated she is not entirely convinced that she can’t look at the issue of preemption because the argument has merit. It does go a long way in demonstrating that 50 the State is highly regulating, not just daycare but adult day care and is going to recommend that a variance be granted. Mr. Robertson stated he is familiar with the Uniform Building Code and in that it states directly that no local building codes shall be more restrictive. Mr. Reel stated he does not have a problem granting the variance but has great reservations on what will happen with respect to future usage if for some reason future ownership decides to take on different categories of patients that may require outdoor area. He is not in favor of the variance because he believes that the State’s requirements preempt this but believe it should be at the minimum control of the State and the City should have the final say. Mr. Roberts stated he tends to agree with Ms. Bloyer and Mr. Robertson. It is felt the Zoning Ordinance did not take into consideration the two separate models for adult day care. Based on that there is no problem with approving the variance because it is lack of clear law. Chair Gainsley stated he was in favor of the variance as well due to the unique use. Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Robertson seconded that the variance be granted. Motion Passed 5-0 with Gainsley, Bloyer, Roberts, Robertson and Reel in favor. 6. New Business: None 7. Communication: Mr. Moore stated the Zoning Interpretation Case 2-99 INT went to the City Council in June. This was in relation to height of the building and how it is determined. City Council overruled staff’s interpretation and the Board of Zoning Appeals resolution to uphold staff interpretation. At the last meeting a Resolution was adopted as to how building height was to be calculated. 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Mr. Reel moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned, Motion Passed Unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Moore Zoning Administrator 51 Item # 9d* July 9, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3CMA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 495.00 ADVANCED STATE SECURITY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 565.85 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 40.65 AMERICAN INSTITUTIONAL SUPPLY SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 123.06 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 629.11 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 499.43 BATTERIES PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 4.88 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 10,014.41 BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 189.78 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 669.99 BOB BARKER COMPANY INC SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 77.65 BRIDGCO DOCKS & LIFTS INC BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 25,382.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 147.60 CHUBB & ASSOCIATES GENERAL SUPPLIES 234.60 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 589.82 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN MAGAZINE LEGAL NOTICES 191.40 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) CUNNINGHAM, ERNIE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,282.00 CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,942.05 DAVIDSON, CHERYL O OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 DEVEIRE, LARRY VAN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 538.89 ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,749.59 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.92 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FASTENAL COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 713.18 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GAVIN PIANO SERVICES INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 575.00 52 GEARS GROUP LIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 350.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GORSKI, MARY LOU TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 120.00 HANSON CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 719.75 HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 7,561.67 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 507.74 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 415.71 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,695.40 HUEBNER, MARC INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 HUIRAS, SHIRLEY EQUIPMENT PARTS 210.24 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,429.51 ICI DELUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 77.96 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00 INDELCO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 441.36 INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 144.00 J & A HANDY-CRAFTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.76 J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 290.29 JONES, WALT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN NOTES PAYABLE 1,994.31 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (41.96) KNOX, ELIZABETH M MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 19.68 LAGERQUIST CORPORATION BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 463.50 LATOUR, BONNIE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,185.00 MC DONELL, MARTHA MEETING EXPENSE 10.88 MC KENNA, SEAN M STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 545.00 MENARDS EQUIPMENT PARTS 153.09 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,201.80 MINNESOTA CHAPTER NIGP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 300.00 MINNESOTA WANNER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 62.46 MINNESOTA WOMEN'S PRESS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 136.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 291.00 MN DEPT OF COMMERCE -SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP 40.00 53 NOTRN S MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 697.04 MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 185.00 MONTE, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 99.95 N A T O A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 465.00 NATL NOTARY ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 34.00 NELSON, ANDREA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 38.00 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 36.90 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 610.60 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 19.85 PARKS, MAURI SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 32.00 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 592.14 PIEL, CHRISTOPHER PROGRAMMING 60.00 PROEX PHOTO KNOLLWOOD 24001 GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.61 PUMP & METER SERVICE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 26,772.87 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,906.25 SAE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIP S 80.00 SAMPSON MILLER ADVERTISING GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.26 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.18 SEDGWICK JAMES OF MINN INC PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 840.00 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 178.50 SMART TEMPTATIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 168.00 SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 253.97 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 525.49 STANCHFIELD, SHERM INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 STANDARD PLUMBING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 220.00 STEVE, BAILEY MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 35.00 STROHL, ERICA GUTMANN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 STROLL, HENRY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 97.50 54 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.23 TEKSYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 2,281.50 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCH OOLS 330.00 USA BLUE BOOK OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 96.21 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 549.20 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 149.32 WARNING LITES OF MN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 878.56 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 4,475.08 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.32 WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 51.50 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (44.33) 133,526.85 July 16, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AARON, JEAN YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 38.00 ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 83.70 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,361.46 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR ACCESSORY PR GENERAL SUPPLIES 134.28 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 448.00 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 264.22 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIAT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 152.00 ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, BRENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 160.00 APPELBAUM, PAGE R SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 64.00 AQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 54.07 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 308.75 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 2,360.00 BCR SUPPLIES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 24.98 BERTELSON OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES 125.74 55 PRODUCTS BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWICHES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 172.53 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 483.02 BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER & ASSOCI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 963.00 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 133.45 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 300.19 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 744.01 BRUNSWICK EDEN PRAIRIE LANES GENERAL SUPPLIES 503.00 C J SPRAY INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 304.59 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.40 CHEROKEE POWER EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.56 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 240.00 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 266.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 105.28 CRILEY, KATHI L GENERAL SUPPLIES 173.63 CYBERGUYS GENERAL SUPPLIES 59.75 DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,457.78 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 244.90 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.00 DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.35 DOUBLETREE PARK PLACE HOTEL MEETING EXPENSE 65.23 ENGHAUSER, CHASE SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 10.00 ERV'S LAWNMOWER SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 53.21 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FOUR SHADOW INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL CINEMA THEATRES GENERAL SUPPLIES 253.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) 56 EQUIPMENT CORP GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,041.42 GOODALL EQUIPMENT PARTS 73.34 GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,980.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,122.34 HAYNES, TRICIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00 HENNEPIN CO ASSESSOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 690.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 81.25 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 800.00 HILLMAN, LAURA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 108.04 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.36 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 226.10 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 139.00 HUMPHREY, CAROLE UNREALIZED REVENUE 15.92 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.51 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 712.96 INTL ASSN ASSESS OFFICERS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 130.00 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 264.26 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 339.28 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 269.30 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43 KARL, BETTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 93.00 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES (17.71) KOENS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 428.00 KOZAK, DEBRA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 KRAAYENBRINK, CHAD GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.00 KRAEMER & SONS INC, EDWARD OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 424.15 LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16 LIGHT CYCLE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 672.01 LINSK FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 84.88 57 LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE/PAINT PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 123.59 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,069.15 LUTHERAN CHURCH OF REFORMATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 431.36 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 115.08 MAKI, DENNIS GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.00 MANAGED SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,438.10 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,260.00 MC CASHIN, BRENDAN D MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 69.44 MERIWETHER FELT GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.84 MERRY, RACHEL YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 38.00 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 242,617.29 METROCALL TELEPHONE 230.98 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 108,108.00 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 734.82 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 820.05 MIND SHARP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,200.00 MINNCOR CENTRAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,186.75 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT GENERAL SUPPLIES 314.75 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 7,763.77 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.32 MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 3,737.91 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 10.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 80.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 80.39 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 46,591.49 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 125.24 NATL NOTARY ASSOCIATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 39.80 NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,743.41 NICHOLLS,HOLLY OTHER CONTRACTUAL 168.70 58 SERVICES NORDWALL, GREGG CHRISTMAS TREE 100.00 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 417.56 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 29,314.28 OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 281.43 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.76 ORACLE CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 725.00 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46 PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 42.39 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 625.61 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.58 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 121.63 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 96.00 QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29,300.00 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 786.99 R & R SPECIALTIES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 869.83 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 138.96 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.79 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,093.75 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 75.97 S & T LAWN SERVICE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 276.90 SAVITT BROS INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 122.52 SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 107.44 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14.95 SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 510.89 SOHNS, JO MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 22.01 ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 404.72 ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 4,253.00 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 147.54 STEINHILBER, PAUL GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.39 SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 242.48 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 162.50 59 SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 900.00 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 908.66 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 7,091.36 TREADWAY GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.00 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 192.42 TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING EXPENSE 75.29 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,463.82 UHL CO INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 265.00 USTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 329.75 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,690.41 VASS, JOSEPH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.07 VOSS, HEATHER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 51.77 WAGNER, POP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 560.00 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 53.06 WARNING LITES OF MN INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,464.18 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,574.23 WILSONART INTERNATIONAL BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 523.20 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 291.67 ZAHL EQUIPMENT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 184.50 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.33 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 65.70 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 145.27 562,359.81 July 12, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 1,781.43 1,781.43 July 12,1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 207.97 RIVER VALLEY CLINIC WORKERS COMPENSATION 147.55 60 INSURANCE 355.52 July 15, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68 ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 81,963.37 BRIGHAM-YOUNG UNIVERSITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,690.70 HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 124,540.78 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,416.53 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00 LEAD CON INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 112,020.35 MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 635.71 MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INSURANC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,381.21 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,954.00 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 125,143.66 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 46,264.09 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,378.12 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 7,819.36 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 2,645.03 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 28,847.99 STATE OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.25 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 317.35 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,942.07 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,735.46 VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 116,882.11 WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP INSURA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 39.00 683,971.80