Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/08/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 16, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Junior Naturalists 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of August 2, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Study Session meeting of June 14, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented c. Study Session meeting of June 28, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented d. Study Session meeting of July 12, 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 2 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Request by St. Lukes Lutheran Church for combined Preliminary and Final Plat approval for St. Lukes Addition 5524 W. 41st Street Case No. 99-17-S Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary and final plat for St. Lukes Addition subject to conditions in the resolution 8b. Park Commons Phase I Project. This report considers actions relating to the establishment and a tax increment financing district for the Phase I area of Park Commons and other related project actions. Recommended Actions: Motion approving resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on October 18, 1999 on the establishment of the Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district). Motion approving Resolution Calling for a joint Public Hearing on October 18, 1999 of the City Council and the Economic Development Authority on the adoption of criteria for awarding Business Subsidies. Motion approving Resolution Declaring the official intent of the City of St. Louis Park to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City. 8c. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 20A Improvements at Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 ½ Street – Project No. 99-06 This report considers public improvements in the vicinity of Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 ½ Street to address the public portion of the storm water in flood area 20A. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 99-06, ordering Project No. 99-06, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids. *8d. Traffic Study No. 543: Property Owner/Business request to change parking restrictions from 15 minutes parking to one hour parking at 4813/4815 3 Minnetonka Boulevard. This report considers the change in parking restrictions at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution No. 4635 and authorizing the change in parking restrictions from 15 minutes parking to one hour parking at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. *8e. Resolution Supporting Metro Transit Application For T21 Grant Resolution supporting a Metro Transit application for Federal grant for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(CMAQ) program fund to enhance transit service in St. Louis Park Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution ____ supporting Metro Transit grant application for T21 funds. *8f. Request by Silvercrest Properties, Inc. for a 46-unit expansion to a senior assisted living facility including an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat for Silvercrest Addition, and Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard Case Nos. 99-14-CP, 99-15-S, and 99-16-VAC Recommended Action: • Motion to continue consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment until September 7, 1999. • Motion to continue consideration of preliminary and final plat of Silvercrest Addition until September 7, 1999. • Motion to continue Second Reading of vacation request until September 7, 1999. 8g. Request for Reconveyance of Tax Forfeited Land Related to Property at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. This report considers actions relating to the establishment and a tax increment financing district for the Phase I area of Park Commons and other related project actions. Recommended Actions: Motion approving Resolution Authorizing the Reconveyance of certain Tax-Forfeited Property and Requesting a Resale. 4 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Sidewalks and Trails Report Action: Motion to accept report for filing *b. Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 25, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 21, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *e. Human Rights Commission Minutes of May 19, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *f. Vendor Claim Report Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments Final- None Partial - None 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 5 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 2, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. 2. Presentations a. Junior Leader Recognition Doug Langefels, Recreation Services Manager briefly explained the Summer Park Program and commended Park Leaders who supported their Junior Leaders. He introduced Patty Reno, Junior Park Leader Coordinator who presented certificates of appreciation Leaders for their volunteer service hours of over 1,400 hours to the community. b. St. Louis Park Royalty Mayor Jacobs introduced the 1999 St. Louis Royalty and commended the royalty and the Parktacular Committee and volunteers for their terrific job representing St. Louis Park. He personally thanked Mark Jones and Julie Haberman for their hard work and dedication to the program and the City of St. Louis Park. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); Mr. Ingraham (Planning Consultant); Police Chief (Mr. Luse); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of July 19, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 4b. Special City Council Meeting of July 26, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas 6 a. Consent Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Request by Silvercrest Properties, Inc. for approvals for a 46-unit expansion to a senior assisted living facility including an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement, 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard. Case Nos. 99-14-CP, 99-15-S, and 99-16-VAC Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement, and Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Councilmember Latz asked why housing to be located on Lot 1 was to be limited to 50% for seniors. Ms. Peterson stated that the intention was to meet one of the Park Commons goals of providing a range of housing opportunities. Councilmember Latz asked what the property owner’s preference was. Michael Gould, President of Silvercrest Properties, stated that he would like to comply with livable communities principles, but his preference would be a total senior housing facility. He presented a brief update about the occupancy of the expansion to the facility. Councilmember Brimeyer asked staff to clarify the Lot area which the 90 unit facility was located and believed that the Council should have a say in the design since there were City funds involved. Sacha Peterson clarified that when the initial proposal was talked about, Lot 1 and Lot 2 were a part of the residential and now she was referring to Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he understood the difficulty in designing a building that accommodates both kinds of users, and understands the difficulty of meeting the market place, 7 but he thought that with a little creativity in marketing and design it could be possible. He stated he would like to be convinced that it was not possible before he would disagree with the request to have the expansion be only a senior facility. Councilmember Nelson stated it was his understanding that this project was going to be a senior campus and questioned how this limitation would affect the marketing of these units. Mr. Gould stated that this was not a type of product that has been seen recently, but believed there would be ways to successfully market it. Peter Phister, an Architect with Boarman Kroos Phister Rudin & Assoc., briefly reviewed the site plans. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing for Comprehensive Amendment subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about cutting back on the amount of open space. She was not in favor of intensification at the expense of open space. She asked what efforts had been made to construct this building higher so that we don’t have to encroach on so many setbacks. She believed that open space was needed for both the residents of the building and the residents of the community. She stated that in the plan the developer said there might be some balancing out of open space in the future construction, but wanted to know how that was actually going to be calculated. She questioned whether there was a guarantee that the final phase would be built and if it would be according to criteria that was set out in this report. Mr. Gould stated that the current site plan elevation was the limit to which you can go with conventional wood framing and typically assisted living facilities were made of this type of construction. He indicated that concrete would be a greater expense. Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate stated that the attempt to compensate for the reduction in usable open space was that there would be no reduction in the amount of usable open space that was currently on the Lot. Councilmember Sanger stated that she was not in favor of this aspect of the plan and asked whether we really need to have so many encroachments and setbacks and if there is another way to address the design of this building. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the limitation to 50% for seniors on the facility from both the perspective of younger people and seniors and prefers not to have any limit. Councilmember Sanger was concerned that there were no provisions for a dedicated bike trail included in the site plan that was right on the route to what would be a very intensively developed Park Commons area in the future. 8 Councilmember Sanger asked what guarantee there was that the final Lot 1 project would be built and by what period of time. Councilmember Sanger questioned if there would be additional requests for City funding for this project. Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Developer clarified that the City provided $500,000 worth of tax increment assistance for the 45-unit building that exists today. That amount of money will be repaid by the tax increment that will be generated by the already existing project and the additional 46 units that are being constructed. Originally, it is anticipated that the City would perhaps be asked to put another $300,000 to allow for the second phase. That was not the case. What we worked out with the developer was that the developer will essentially pre-pay the City for what would ordinarily be paid in increments in years to come for return for the elimination of future payments to the City for deficiencies and tax increments. Mr. Harmening stated that the City does not have a contractual arrangement with the developer that mandates or requires him to redevelop Lot 1. Mr. Harmening stated that in the sidewalk and trails master plan, the City had not identified Park Center Boulevard as a bike trail location and as a part of this project staff did not attempt to consolidate or incorporate a bike trail. Councilmember Sanger believed the City needed to plan now for a way to have safe bicycling to get to and from Park Commons according to the livable communities principles. Mr. Harmening stated that there would be opportunities to gain access to the Park Commons area via the Belt Line/36th intersection and a system of trails that would be installed in Wolfe Park, but if Council was interested in developing a bike trail they would need to include in action. Councilmember Nelson was concerned about the City’s ability to control and limit the demand on police and fire emergency services. He understood that staff was aware of the issue and the developer has included a proposal in plan, but suggested creating some kind of false alarm charge. Ms. Peterson stated that staff could include some provision either as a condition in the resolution or include it in the development agreement. Mr. Gould stated that once the building was constructed he was going to be hiring EMT and nursing staff to assess the appropriate assessment at that time similar to the Walker model at HCMC. A recent analysis had stated that an EMT could have handled 42% of the calls from Parkshore. Councilmember Nelson stated that he was not comfortable relying on the fact that Silvercrest was going to continue to own this facility, so he would like to have some kind of condition or false alarm charge written into the development plan. 9 Councilmember Latz questioned whether we were addressing the issue because the City has an investment in the project, and if it was not anticipated that the City would be a partner in the redevelopment of Lot 1 would the city have any leverage. Mr. Gould indicated that he believed the City would have money involved in the redevelopment of Lot 1. Councilmember Latz questioned if this was really a mixed age development for logistical, housing difficulties and security issues and doesn’t see any reason for the 50% limit. He indicated there was a real demand for senior housing and particularly for those looking to move out of single family homes and stay in community near family and services they area accustomed to. He supports intensifying density and has no concern about open space, since this development in right next to Wolfe Park. He believed the issue of a bike trail should be explored and pedestrian connections be accommodated. He asked staff to clarify the timing for this project. Councilmember Young concurred with Councilmember Latz. He was in favor of deleting the condition to limit senior housing to 50%. Councilmember Santa stated that she envisioned this as a senior campus. She didn’t have enough information about the Walker model to determine how that would address the false alarm problem. She was in favor of a bike trail, but was concerned about a trail crossing service entrances. Ms. Peterson reviewed the location of the existing bike trail and clarified where the proposed trail would be constructed and noted that it does minimizes conflict with other types of traffic. Mr. Harmening stated that the conflict with the trail that was currently proposed related to Park Center Boulevard. He indicated that where the trail was currently located it would probably be better able to take advantage of a potential intersection of a future north south road and Park Center Boulevard intersection that would probably be signalized. This location is currently the location where there was a curb depression to get across Park Center Boulevard, but is not ideal since there was not a signal. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the false alarm condition that Councilmember Nelson referred to was a good idea, but he would rather see that when non-emergency calls get to a certain point in any project like this, then the condition would be triggered. Councilmember Nelson preferred to address this site specifically, which may provide a blue print for future activities, but have a false alarm charge. The false alarm charge may get a certain percentage free to allow for general errors, but not enough to encourage the abandonment of the program that Silvercrest decides to institute. 10 Mr. Meyer, City Manager indicated that there were false alarm charges, but they were associated with mechanical alarms, but for a 911 call there was no mechanism to characterize some as false alarms and others as real calls. Councilmember Latz did not believe the City ought to be involved in deciding which calls should be considered false alarms and which should be considered real. He agreed with Councilmember Brimeyer and the idea that when you reach a certain density of senior housing or a certain level of emergency calls to a senior housing campus, you will be required to provide some sort of in house mechanism to respond to calls. Councilmember Brimeyer believed that after what has been discussed he did not see a way to design a building that accommodates both seniors and other age groups. Councilmember Sanger recommended looking at developing a separate ordinance identifying what was an appropriate level of in-house medical services and not addressing this issue one way or the other in this particular development plan. Councilmember Nelson believed that it would be appropriate to take the 50% limit out of the Comprehensive Plan and address it further in a development agreement at a later date. He preferred to address the emergency service issue at this time. Mayor Jacobs was not in favor of the 50% limit for senior housing. He believed the emergency service issue needed to be addressed. He was not concerned about open space since the development was so close to Wolfe Park. He was in favor of exploring if it was appropriate or feasible to construct a bike trail in this location. Councilmember Sanger asked if it was feasible to delay the item for two weeks while staff explores some of the issues. Mr. Harmening stated that this was possible and explained the alternative actions that could be taken by Council. Mr. Scott, City Attorney directed Council and staff on appropriate actions to be taken. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Young, to continue consideration of the Comprehensive Plan amendment until August 16, 1999 and direct Staff to prepare as part of the resolution for consideration by the Council, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment deleting the 50% requirement for any future Lot 1 development, to explore the feasibility and necessity of a bike trail, and explore options for addressing the EMT staffing issue. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for August 16, 1999. The motion passed 7-0. 11 It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to defer the issue of the preliminary plat of Silvercrest Addition until August 16, 1999. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Criminal History Background Checks It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to waive second reading, adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize publication. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution setting the fee for conducting background checks. The motion passed 7-0. John Luse, Police Chief noted that National Night Out was on Tuesday, August 3rd and about 90 blocks throughout would be participating this year. 8b. Request by Frauenshuh Companies for a minor amendment to a Special Use Permit for facade and building changes for a bank/dental building with bank drive through 4951-4959 Excelsior Boulevard Case No. 99-20-CUP Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented staff report and recommended approval of the minor amendment to a Special Use Permit subject to conditions in the resolution. Representatives from Frauenshuh and Pope Associates were present to answer questions. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to a Special Use Permit to condition in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. Case No. 99-19-PUD Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant presented an update on the issues related to the proposed development and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary PUD subject to the conditions included in the resolution. Mayor Jacobs asked staff to clarify that the medical office building was 60,000 gross square feet and 54,000 leaseable square feet. He believed that additional right of way was going to be necessary to make the intersection work. 12 Michael Frauenshuh was present and indicated that the site was going to be enhanced by the proposed plan. He asked if there would be a compromise to the tree replacement requirement and suggested that the requirement of 50% (125 trees) be changed to 25% (62 trees) to be spread out in other locations throughout the city. He stated that he was trying to keep costs down with the signalization and the dedication fees and trying to maximize what could be with current funds. He indicated that a 14 feet right of way Highway 7 would cost the project 54 parking stalls and that creates a huge problem for the project. Mr. Harmening stated that staff was going to spend some time before final plat approval really looking at the right of way dedication needs to accommodate what was proposed to be double lefts on Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue going North bound. Councilmember Brimeyer was inclined to believe that the right of way needed to be considered further. Councilmember Sanger was not in favor of this project because of the intention with the relocation of the billboard. Her concern was this would set precedence for future Councils. Councilmember Nelson believed that this was a nice sentiment, but believed it would not have any legal affect. He asked the City Attorney to comment on whether or not the Council had expressed themselves well enough in their findings as to why they are doing it this way and are they in the records so that would be what was going to uphold their decision not to force the removal of the billboard rather than adding this sentence. Councilmember Sanger clarified that her concern goes to the potential situation with some other developer down the line. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that he was satisfied that between the staff report, what we have in the record and the findings that the issue was covered. The Council discussed the relocation of billboard setting and some Councilmembers felt that what was being done here does not set any particular precedence one way or the other, but may prove to be very useful in the future. Councilmember Young stated that what was done here related to the billboard was a wise decision and a good example of what should be done in the future. He believed that the billboard should remain and indicated he would be opposed to Councilmember Sanger’s amendment. Councilmember Latz stated that he would not accept this as a friendly amendment because he was not opposed to billboard along major state highways and would handle this case exactly the same since he was but still opposed to spending City funds for purposes to eliminate a billboard. He indicated he would be opposed to Councilmember Sanger’s amendment. The Council briefly discussed a condition related to the financial guarantee on the trees. Councilmember Latz stated that given the margins on this project, the developer’s agreement to 13 pay for the signalization, and the unique soil condition, which has increased the cost of the trees, that the developer is replacing on this site he would be willing to waive any additional tree replacement fees. Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that if the Council was concerned about the provision for the financial guarantee on the trees the Council should change that. He suggested that if the Council took it down to zero, he believed, given the current tree replacement ordinance, that the Council was in a situation on a regular basis where we will not be able to accommodate the amount of trees required by the ordinance. MOTION: It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and the Preliminary PUD subject to the conditions included in the resolution. The motion passed 6-0. Councilmember Sanger opposed. AMENDMENT: It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to amend resolution on Page 56, paragraph 8 by adding this additional sentence “relocation of this billboard shall not be used as a precedence to facilitate the relocation or retention of any billboard in St. Louis Park.” The motion passed 5-2. Councilmember Latz and Councilmember Young opposed. AMENDMENT: It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to amend the resolution on Page 57, Item 4C to state that “an escrow account or other form of financial guarantee acceptable to the City, should be established in the amount of $17,500 to take into consideration tree replacement requirements to be met by the developers”. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Parkwood Shores Assisted Living Project - Phase II It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution calling for a Public Hearing on September 20, 1999 on the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Planning Commission minutes of June 16, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Planning Commission minutes of July 7, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. c. Vendor Claims Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business 14 10a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Young, to appoint David Lee to the Fire and Civil Service Commission and Judith Moore to the Housing Commission. The motion passed 6-0-1. Councilmember Nelson abstained. Note that both of above persons served on the Human Rights Commission prior to their appointment to these Commissions. Mr. Meyer, City Manager commended Roger Israel for his terrific job on the Fire Civil Service Commission and other service he provided to the City of St. Louis Park. 11. New Business - None 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments Final Hardrives, Inc. $42,614.75 Crack Repair, Median Replacement Contract No. 21-99 By consent, Council adopted resolution Partial Hardrives, Inc. $131,234.61 Construction Phase 2 Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Ave to France Avenue Contract No. 14-98 Valley Paving $ 94,243.71 Watermain replacement, pavement milling, curb & gutter Contract No. 19-99 By consent, Council approved and authorized payments. 14. Communications 15 Mr. Meyer, City Manager noted that all of the EDA, City Council and other Commission meetings have been relocated to the Community Room on the first floor of City Hall until after Labor Day. The City Council chambers would be undergoing some renovation to improve the video quality of the City Council Meetings. Mr. Meyer indicated there was an agenda item relative to the trail and sidewalk plan for the August 16, 1999 City Council Meeting. He noted that the Council would not be acting on anything specific that evening that the public would need to be immediately concerned about and that there would be a lot of future opportunities for people to give input on this item. 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. City Clerk Mayor 16 Item # 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 14, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Susan Santa, Susan Sanger, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Chris Nelson arrived at 6:25, Councilmember Jim Brimeyer arrived at 7:38. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Jeremiah); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Community Television Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap); Facilities Superintendent (Mr. Altepeter); Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires) and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 1. EDA Financial and Park Commons Update Staff and Financial Consultant Rusty Fifeld of Ehlers and Associates met with Council to discuss the status of EDA financial planning and how it relates to funding the Park Commons Phase One project. Mr. Fifield provided the Council with an overview of the current financial status of TIF Districts that can be used to help fund projects such as Park Commons Phase One. The presentation focused on project revenues over the remaining life of the TIF Districts, flow of funds needed to support existing debt, potential revenues available for other development projects such as Park Commons and future strategies to consider. Councilmember Latz stated that he wanted money available for other projects in the city and did not want to expend all the City’s resources on one project. Mr. Meyer said that the City’s Development Fund could be left untouched and that funds needed to complete Park commons could likely all come from TIF proceeds. Mr. Harmening offered to come back at a later meeting with a refinement of the TIF analysis and more details about the project size, cost and the amount of public dollars that would be needed to complete Phase I. Councilmember Sanger asked what role tax abatement could play. Mr. Harmening replied that the focus would be in reducing the LGA/HACA penalty. She suggested that the City might want to lobby the legislature to reduce penalties for districts with livable community projects in them. Councilmember Nelson asked what percent of the project would be funded with public dollars. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the current estimate was 30% with more firm projections to be communicated to Council in July. 17 Councilmember Nelson thought that the design should be taken to the public prior to committing more public dollars. Councilmembers Sanger and Jacobs disagreed saying that they did not want to raise public expectations. They felt there had been ample opportunity for public input throughout the planning process. Mr. Harmening informed Council that the project was at a point where the single-family homes needed to be moved or demolished. The Police Department had started receiving nuisance calls related to the vacant property and wanted the homes removed as soon as possible. Mr. Anderson suggested that Public Works put together the bid specs and leave it up to the contractor as to whether they wanted to move or demolish the homes. The bid package would be prepared in late July for an August approval. Demolition could begin by September 15th and would be completed in November. 2. JCC Campus Expansion Staff and representatives of the Jewish Community Center (JCC) met with Council to review interest in recommencing discussions regarding the purchase of City property located just south of the JCC Campus. The JCC is interested in purchasing part or all of the property for the purpose of accommodating an expansion to their facility. Councilmember Sanger suggested that if the JCC did choose to expand, they do neighborhood outreach and obtain traffic and noise studies. She also encouraged the JCC to move trees rather than simply cut them down. Councilmember Nelson had questions regarding the market value of the property, soil testing, financing contingencies and surface water. Staff and the JCC representatives stated that because the property has previously been zoned at a higher density, the value had been larger in the past. Regarding surface water, a pond was shown in the plans and all felt it should be adequate to meet the need. One of the parcels in question had been identified as a storm water holding pond. Council was inclined to sell both parcels to the JCC rather than retaining the storm water area, which will be made inaccessible if JCC goes forward with the development plan. 3. Inspections Department Reorganization Mr. Hoffman presented a revised organization plan and response to Council’s inquiries from the April 26 study session discussion on reorganization of the Inspection Department. Since that meeting, Inspections and community Development had been working together and had decided that it would be logical to move the Zoning Administrator from Inspections to community Development. This structure has existed informally for some time, and if formalized would free 18 up the Inspections Department Director’s time and reduce the number of direct reports. Council discussed performance measurement and public opinion of the Inspections function. 4. Remodeling Updates Mr. Pires, Mr. Altepeter and Mr. Dunlap met with Council to discuss three remodeling projects: the Council chambers, 3rd floor of City Hall and relocation of the main entrance and reception area. They pointed out some of the features to be included in the remodeling and discussed time frames. 5. Recodification As the next step in the recodification process, staff asked council to provide direction on several issues. They were informed that some more substantive issues would be brought forward to future meetings. Council discussed youth membership and voting status on city boards and commissions, the Building Codes Construction Advisory Commission and Neighborhood Revitalization Commission, fowl and other domestic animals in city limits, undergrounding of electrical lines, youth curfew, snow and ice removal and recreational fires. 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 19 Item # 4c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 28, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson), and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 1. CSM Development Proposal Mr. Anderson introduced the preliminary application for TIF assistance at 5901 Wayzata Boulevard for a proposed hotel and residential redevelopment project. Dave Darland of CSM was present and indicated to council the amounts of money the developer felt was needed to complete the project and also discussed payback of funds. Mr. Harmening informed council of current zoning of the property in the comprehensive plan and discussed issues regarding park dedication. He indicated that this was a preliminary discussion only. If Council expressed interest the developer would undertake a public process. Councilmember Nelson asked Councilmember Sanger to comment on the project from her perspective as Ward I Councilmember. She expressed support of the project and also indicated that she felt there was widespread support in the neighborhood as well. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if tax increment financing was really needed. He felt the project was great but was hesitant to provide public dollars to support it. Councilmember Nelson said there was no need because the site is not polluted and does not face any other adversity. Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt that this project would assist in meeting goals of housing in the neighborhood. Councilmember Ron Latz arrived at the meeting. Mr. Harmening stated that this proposal rids the neighborhood of non-conforming use and creates move-up housing, both identified as goals of the city. Councilmember Young felt that the higher and better use of property was a good goal. He then compared it with the Park Commons project. Councilmember Santa asked how the “but for” test works. Councilmember Sanger replied that the term applied to projects that could not be done “but for” the use of public dollars. Those public dollars could create a level playing field allowing projects that would otherwise not be completed to move forward. 20 Councilmember Nelson felt that if a project meets public goals, it then becomes justifiable to use public money. He did, however, feel that the payback time would be too long. Mr. Anderson stated that a more precise analysis could be brought forward if Council wanted to continue as a partner in financing the project. Dave Carland, Vice President of Development at CSM Corp., stated that this particular project should not be considered to be corporate welfare but rather should be considered a land buy- down. He went on the state that when land is cleared and ready to go it becomes profitable. If the land is not, development cannot take place. He stated that in order for the housing and park components to work, the industrial building needed to be built. Mayor Jacobs stated that he liked the project and would like it to move forward but felt he needed more information. He felt that the TIF amount and the preliminary plans should be looked at and brought forward to Council in more concrete form. Councilmember Sanger asked if the sale price of housing could be higher. She said that the higher sale money would provide for faster pay back. Councilmember Brimeyer also compared this project to Park Commons. He stated that if TIF meets that vision it also meets this one. He suggested that the developer and staff return to Council will different numbers that may be more palatable. Councilmember Nelson stated that the City is in a good position because of the low percentage of property tied up in TIF districts. He stated that he is not opposed to this project because an increase in assessed value is good. He was uncomfortable with the amount of money from public assistance and asked that the proposal be redesigned to include a faster payback. Councilmember Sanger asked if the residents present in the chambers were in support of the timing being considered. Dave Carland stated that the preferred timeline is soon but it is not urgent. Mayor Jacobs asked if the project would be done in phases or all at once. The developer responded that they would prefer quick development, but were flexible. Mr. Harmening said if Council is supportive of the idea, a public meeting will be held. He spoke briefly about the rezoning, platting process, and Park and ROW dedication that will take place. He suggested that the entire process might take several months. He estimated a possible project start in spring. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if there was a willing buyer and seller. Mr. Harmening stated the developer must handle the project details. He also said that the concerns about the implications on staff time have been relieved. The developer stated that the Nagle billboard would be terminated. He also stated that public improvement of the frontage road could be accomplished. Mr. Harmening pointed out that the NSP property also needs to be acquired and Jim Rhodes has expressed willingness to negotiate. 21 Councilmember Latz said he did not want to subsidize billboard acquisition with tax increment financing. Mayor Jacobs suggested that these questions be considered at a future study session. Mr. Meyer suggested that the three key ideas to focus on were the real value of the project, the percent of interest, and how realistic the return on the investment is. Councilmember Latz asked if a comparable project using the percent of tax increment financing has been done in St. Louis Park. Mr. Anderson stated that staff would do that research and present along with business points at a future study session. 2. MSP Real Estate Update Mr. Anderson introduced Milo Pinkerton and Mike Woods with MSP Real Estate. Also present was Steve Johnson from Peer Environmental. He stated that they were interested in tax increment financing for construction of housing on the former Mill City Plywood site. Questions were raised about qualified costs. It was determined that the site probably qualifies as “blighted”. Mr. Pinkerton stated that the Department of Trade and Economic Development would not require removal of all soils, just six or seven feet. He also stated that the project would consist of mostly upscale rental housing. Councilmember Young asked about the loss of tax increment on the Oak Park village site. Questions were raised about the increment from the Mill City site and potential loss of revenue to the City. Mr. Harmening also pointed out that this project would require a significant amount of staff resources. If Council wanted to move forward with the project, staff must be increased to handle the project. Councilmember Sanger stated that she was generally supportive of the project but was concerned that the parking to apartment ratio was inadequate. Councilmember Santa stated that she was concerned with traffic. Mr. Harmening replied that the concern with the Walker and Louisiana Ave intersection came out of the Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave study. He suggested that improvements could include signals at the intersection. Councilmember Nelson suggested that they refer to the traffic study. Councilmember Latz suggested that Walker Ave. be realigned for improvement. Mayor Jacobs felt that any discussion about this site should be tied in with discussion about the future of the Oak Park Village site. 22 Councilmember Latz said he liked the project and that a realignment of Walker Ave. would serve several purposes. Councilmember Nelson asked if the City could proceed with the project prior to improving the infrastructure. Councilmember Latz stated that he had spoken to the developer and they had said the project could be completed in stages. It was decided that if Council pursues the realignment of Walker, staff would be able to complete that project. It was also discussed that staff time and cost of the project should be looked at. Councilmember Young does not want to discontinue the project because of staffing issues. Mr. Harmening agreed but said he did not want to promise what staff couldn’t deliver. Councilmember Nelson asked if it was possible to get a proposal from the public works department on the long-term level of service at the intersection. Mr. Meyer replied that he would pursue that with the public works staff. Councilmember Sanger suggested that the discussion be deferred until more information is gathered from the public works department. Council was in consensus that the project was a good use of tax increment financing. It was decided that more information should be brought back to a future meeting. Councilmember Santa stated that she sees the project as good for the community. Mr. Meyer asked the Council if they felt the property price was too high. Councilmember Nelson asked for clarification of the difference between tax increment financing and land write-down. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be pay back with tax increment financing. The Council then discussed the taxable market value of the property. 3. Dogs in Parks At a previous study session, Council had requested that discussion take place regarding dogs in city parks. Several calls had been received by both staff and council requesting that dogs be allowed space for off-leash exercise areas. Councilmember Sanger suggested that bags for clean up should be made available in the parks and that the dog areas should be fenced off. Councilmember Nelson expressed concern that the neighboring property owners to the park would be upset about the dogs and increased activity near their property. Councilmember Young suggested that the Park and Recreation Commission be asked to determine where an off-leash dog park should be placed. Councilmember Sanger felt that a couple of acres would be enough land for the dog park. Mayor Jacobs stated that the number of parks where dogs are allowed should be expanded and the rules for those parks must be enforced. Mr. Meyer suggested that the Police Department be consulted about their ability to enforce any changes proposed for the dog ordinance. Ms. Walsh stated that most people do seem to clean up after their pets. 23 Councilmember Nelson felt that some parks should remain free of dogs. Councilmember Latz agreed. Mr. Meyer informed Council that an ordinance change concerning dogs in the parks would be brought forward for future discussion. 4. Renaming of Hutchinson Spur Trail Councilmember Sanger stated that she would like to see the “Hutchinson Spur” portion of the Hennepin regional trial system named after Gloria Segal, a local politician and member of the community. Councilmember Nelson agreed that she was a worthy recipient of that honor. Mr. Meyer stated that staff was unclear as to what Hennepin County would allow in regard to renaming trails. It was suggested that it could be confusing for trail users if sections of a larger system were renamed. Councilmember Latz felt that Gloria Segal was a good legislator but suggested that perhaps they look at other possible recipients before making a final decision. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that instead of naming the trail itself after community members, they could place benches or other rest areas with appropriate signage along the trail to honor prominent community members. It was also suggested that the issue be sent to the Park and Recreation Commission to determine standards for this type of recognition. Councilmember Nelson felt that the Historical Society should be involved. Ms. Walsh then brought up the issue of locker rooms at the Rec Center. She reported that she had met with both Benilde and the St. Louis Park Schools to discuss the issue. Ms. Walsh then discussed the history of this issue and the difficulty for both groups to come to an understanding on the subject. Mayor Jacobs raised several questions. He asked if the City should put up the money for Benilde and the St. Louis Park Schools, both of which will have $50,000 in expenditure. Secondly, he asked whether the lockers should be open to public or private use. The Council agreed that staff should pursue resolution of this issue. 5. Council Salaries Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that the activities of the Council and Economic Development Authority be equalized. Councilmember Sanger felt that the Council and EDA should not be separated. Council compared other cities' salary information, concluding that for most cities, the EDA pay is set separately. 24 Councilmember Nelson felt the pay should be raised and indexed. Councilmember Latz suggested the pay be kept under $10,000 and indexed, combining the Council and EDA. Council then discussed the public perception of this issue. They discussed the number of hours and meetings Councilmembers were required to attend and the timing of any action to be taken. Mr. Meyer agreed to draft a proposal for increase of council salaries for future discussion. 6. Safe Drinking Water Mr. Rardin and Mr. Anderson met with Council to inform them of implementation of various aspects of the 1996 amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. That act requires cities to issue consumer confidence reports which identify additional contaminants in drinking water. Mr. Anderson shared St. Louis Park’s brochure that was being distributed to the community. 7. Communications Councilmember Brimeyer reported that the Dayton’s Challenge Tournament recently held at the Minneapolis Golf Club had been a success and had raised significant charitable contributions. Mr. Meyer informed Council that a letter of apology from the Parktacular committee would be appearing in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor for comments made about a local business during the parade. Council briefly discussed a process to evaluate the performance of the City Manager. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 25 Item # 4d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 12, 1999 The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Susan Santa, Susan Sanger, Robert Young, Chris Nelson and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Jim Brimeyer arrived at 6:35. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Jeremiah); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson); Engineering Superintendent (Mr. Moore); Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley) and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 1. Park Commons East and West Staff met with Council to discuss an analysis of various options for funding the Park Commons Phase One project. Mark Ruff of Ehler’s and Associates was present and presented council with a memorandum describing the results of the current analysis and the issues related to finance options. Council discussed existing assets, potential changes to TIF legislation, LGA/HACA penalties, livable communities grant funds, and compared tax increment financing options. Mr. Harmening said that there were challenges to the financial component of the project. Avalon Bay has asked for some kind of commitment from the City as to the amount of public dollars to be contributed to the project. They also asked for formal adoption of the master plan and for a commitment by the city to acquire the remaining properties on the site. Councilmember Nelson asked for an update on acquisitions of the existing commercial properties. Mr. Harmening said that the City was very close to finalizing all negotiations in the phase one area. Mr. Meyer said that staff recommended creating a new TIF district and using the proceeds from that district to finance the Park Commons development. Mr. Harmening said that a 33% contribution from the City was at the high end of where he was willing to go. Councilmember Sanger said she would like to know what the cost of the city infrastructure would be. Mr. Harmening responded that the infrastructure would cost approximately $35 M. He felt that if Council was not comfortable with that level of support to the project, we needed to state that right now. Councilmember Latz felt that the project should be pursued and that real estate values all along Excelsior Blvd would skyrocket as a result of this development. Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about the time frame for establishing the new TIF district. Mr. Harmening stated that it could be accomplished this fall. 26 2. Sidewalk and Trail Update Mr. Rardin and Ms. Walsh spoke with Council regarding action taken since the April 12 Study Session. Several activities have occurred including: Council adoption of the Master Plan; media publication including the Park Perspective, direct mail brochure and Cable TV; presentations to neighborhood groups, completion of a field review and direct response to questions and concerns from the public. Councilmember Sanger had received a significant number of comments about the trail proposed for West 28th Street. She felt that the staff and the Council had received enough feedback about this location and that a change to the plan should already have been made. Councilmember Brimeyer agreed that a change to location on 28th Street may be a good idea but disagreed with Councilmember Sanger’s comments about process. He felt that public comments about the plan should be compiled, considered, presented to the council with recommendations from staff and the Council as a whole should then take action. He did not want to see a piecemeal approach to modifying the plan. Councilmember Sanger did not feel that adequate discussion had occurred regarding the public process and how changes would be made. Councilmember Latz disagreed, saying that Council had adopted an implementation plan that included public participation and a timeline for adopting changes to the plan. He expressed satisfaction with the process currently in place. Mayor Jacobs stated that he recalled a specific Council discussion where they had decided that street by street analysis of the plan would not occur until after the public process had occurred. Mr. Rardin said that staff would be returning to council in early August with a summary of suggested changes for Council consideration. Councilmember Santa felt that residents she had spoken to were generally comfortable with the assurances they had received about the public process and opportunity to change those portions of the plan that did not work. Councilmember Latz commended staff on the brochure and said that it was written very well. 3. Stormwater Utility Fund and Flood Problem Area Update Mike Rardin and other members of the Public Works Department met with Council to provide information about the proposed Stormwater Utility and to discuss related policies and the process associated with implementation. Mr. Rardin explained that the utility fund would finance a total program of master planning, regulation, routine and remedial maintenance, and capital projects needed to correct stormwater problems. The fund is needed to finance corrective work for existing flood areas, operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities, erosion and sedimentation control and wetland preservation and water quality control. 27 Councilmember Sanger asked why two separate water utilities were needed. Mr. Rardin responded that current utility rates are based on drinking water use. It would be difficult to justify how that relates to storm water run off. Councilmember Sanger suggested that public expectations should be managed and that the public needed to be well informed about the benefits of this utility fund to our community. Staff asked for direction on several questions of policy. After discussion, Council determined that they did with to take a proactive approach to manage storm water, they did feel that the proposed utility was consistent with the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and that money generated by the utility should be dedicated for the exclusive use of the stormwater management plan. Council did not want to establish a separate review committee for stormwater related issues. Discussion also occurred about when public dollars should be used to fund a project located on private property. Council felt that when flooding occurs as a result of run off caused by public infrastructure or from public land, it would be appropriate to utilize public dollars. If flooding is caused by a privately owned and controlled use and occurs on privately owned and controlled land, civil action between the two private parties would be more appropriate. It was recognized that some cases would need to be looked at and decided upon on a case by case basis. Carlton Moore also presented to Council an update of the 22 flood problem areas previously identified. Councilmember Latz asked if the School Board had been informed about plans for Lamplighter Park and if the flood control plan fit in with their plans for the future of the property. Councilmember Santa asked about Knollwood Mall’s participation in the plan and if changes proposed at Knollwood meshed with the City’s plan. Mr. Moore responded that they had not yet submitted a redevelopment plan to the City, but that when it was submitted storm water run-off would be addressed. Mr. Moore stated that two public projects were already underway and that those projects were funded entirely with public dollars. Councilmember Brimeyer suggested presenting a report to the Business Council about the Storm Water Utility and Flooding Problem Areas. 4. Railroad Study Phase Two Council discussed a memorandum submitted by Richard Koppy, Railroad Project Manager which outlined progress made on Phase I of the railroad study and suggested activities for Phase II of the study. Mr. Meyer stated that the County had funded Phase I but not the noise study with Hopkins and Minnetonka. Additional support from the County would be needed to complete Phase II activities. 28 Councilmember Young stated that he was not in support of this project when it was originally enacted and that he did not want any additional St. Louis Park to be used to fund the study. Mr. Meyer said that they would add a list of possible funding sources to the scope of services for Council consideration. Councilmember Sanger asked that a study of train speed, noise and vibration be part of Phase II. Mayor Jacobs asked that staff determine what the city can do to enforce roadbed maintenance by the railroad. Mr. Koppy stated that at the end of Phase II criteria and standards for many rail operations would be clear. Councilmember Nelson asked if activity at the wye was considered “yard operations”. Mr. Koppy said that it was. Mr. Meyer stated that attorneys for the 3 cities involved disagreed about whether yard operations can be regulated through a zoning ordinance. Mr. Koppy informed Council that the railroad would be spreading blocking operations out over the 3 cities by purchasing new switching equipment. Mr. Meyer said that Minnetonka and Hopkins may participate in the purchase of the switching equipment. Mr. Koppy also said that the TC&W is interested in placing blocking and switching operations in Glencoe near their main office. With the exception of Councilmember Young, Council directed staff to move forward with the study. Mr. Meyer asked if monetary contribution from the city should be made. Councilmember Sanger questioned the use of public dollars to mitigate problems in one neighborhood while allowing problems elsewhere to continue. Councilmembers Latz, Jacobs and Brimeyer all expressed their belief that it would be impossible to address all problems relating to railroads simultaneously; that railroads affect the public in general, and that it was appropriate to expend public dollars to alleviate problems where it was possible to do so. Even though the city would not be able to address all areas of concern at once, it was still appropriate to expend the public dollars. 5. Communications Mr. Meyer informed Council that the Nevens site DTED grant had been approved. 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 29 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of August 16, 1999 8a. Request by St. Lukes Lutheran Church for combined Preliminary and Final Plat approval for St. Lukes Addition 5524 W. 41st Street Case No. 99-17-S Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary and final plat for St. Lukes Addition subject to conditions in the resolution Zoning: R-2, Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Background: St. Lukes Church owns a parcel which contains a church, church parking lot, and a single family home. Their desire is to replat the parcel to create a separate lot for the single family home. This would enable the church to sell the home and generate income for the church. Two separate lots are proposed as shown on the preliminary and final plat. An ingress/egress easement for the church parking lot is proposed over the northern portion of the single family lot. The church recently obtained two variances from the St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) in preparation for the replat request. On June 24, 1999 BOZA granted variances to allow the north side yard of the church building to be within 9.7 feet of the proposed new lot line, and for a rear yard setback for the single family home of 18.65 feet. The north lot line of Lot 1 has since been moved one foot to the north per the Building Official’s recommendation, so that the proposed building setback is actually larger than that required per BOZA’s approval. On July 21, 1999 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat, subject to conditions including several conditions required to be met prior to City Council consideration. Issues: • Have the conditions for City Council consideration been met? • Are there any other issues? Issues Analysis: Have the conditions for City Council consideration been met? 30 a. Preliminary plat to be revised to show quarter section lines, existing zoning of subject and surrounding properties, to remove grading contours and utility information, and to show proposed ingress/egress easement across Lot 1. The preliminary plat has been revised to conform to the above requirements and to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This condition is met. b. Final plat to be revised to show quarter section lines, legal description consistent with preliminary plat, and proposed new legal description of Lots 1 and 2. The final plat has been revised to conform to the above requirements. This condition is met. c. Both preliminary and final plat documents to be revised to shift the single family lot one foot to the north. In order to achieve a minimum ten foot setback between the north property line of proposed Lot 1 and the church building, the Building Official recommended that the lot line be shifted one foot to the north. This would enable minor remodeling of the building in this area in the future if desired. Although the church has no plans to remodel this portion of the building, they agreed to shift the lot line by one foot. The revision is shown on the preliminary and final plat, so that Lot 1 is 81 feet wide along Webster Avenue. This condition is met. d. Provide evidence that plat is accepted by utility companies. NSP has an overhead utility line which runs north-south through the middle of the proposed plat. To accommodate the line, an easement is proposed to be dedicated in this area as part of the final plat. The other utility companies were given over 50 days to respond with any concerns and have not responded. Therefore, this condition is met. The Zoning Ordinance requires existing utilities to be placed underground with a new building or expansion, and the Subdivision Ordinance requires all new utilities to be placed underground. Because there are no physical improvements proposed to the property and the utilities are existing, this requirement does not apply in this case. Are there any other issues? Ingress/Egress Easement: An ingress/egress easement is proposed over the north portion of the single family lot to accommodate a church driveway. The private easement must be recorded by separate document rather than on the final plat, and staff is recommending a condition that the easement be recorded simultaneously with the final plat. Accompanying plans: The Subdivision Ordinance requires grading, utility, erosion control, landscaping, and tree removal plans accompany a plat request. In this instance, no physical changes or improvements are proposed to the properties. Therefore, the applicant has submitted plans showing existing grading and utilities and is not required to submit erosion control, 31 landscaping, or tree replacement plans. Public Works has reviewed and accepted the grading and utility plans. Development Agreement: Because no physical changes are proposed to the property, a Development Agreement in not required in this instance. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Dedication of easements as shown on the final plat. 2. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. 3. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, the property owner shall record an ingress/egress easement across Lot 1 for the church parking lot/driveway. 4. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and easements. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Proposed preliminary and final plat • Grading and utility plans Prepared by: Sacha Peterson Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 32 RESOLUTION NO. 99-93 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF ST. LUKES ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. St. Lukes Lutheran Church of St. Louis Park, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as St. Lukes Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: See Attached Legal Description Conclusion 1. The proposed final plat of St. Lukes Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: A. Dedication of easements as shown on the final plat. 33 B. Within 60 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. C. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, the property owner shall record an ingress/egress easement across Lot 1 for the church parking lot/driveway. D. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and easements. provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk as provided for in Sections 14-303(3)(d) and (e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and Section 14-303(3)(e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 14-303(3)(e), shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. Reviewed for Administration: Approved by the City Council August 16, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 34 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of August 16, 1999 8b. Park Commons Phase I Project. This report considers actions relating to the establishment and a tax increment financing district for the Phase I area of Park Commons and other related project actions. Recommended Actions: Motion approving resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on October 18, 1999 on the establishment of the Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district). Motion approving Resolution Calling for a joint Public Hearing on October 18, 1999 of the City Council and the Economic Development Authority on the adoption of criteria for awarding Business Subsidies. Motion approving Resolution Declaring the official intent of the City of St. Louis Park to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: Staff is requesting three actions by the City Council relating to setting the framework for financing and project activities for the Park Commons Phase I area. Please note that these actions are somewhat procedural in nature in that they request or require future action by the Council. Background and summaries on each of the actions are provided in the body of this report. HEARING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW TIF DISTRICT: On July 12, 1999, staff presented preliminary scenarios/options relating to the use of tax increment financing for the Phase I Park Commons project. During the discussion with the Council/EDA various issues related to the use of the existing Excelsior Boulevard district vs. the creation of a new tax increment district were explored (primarily in the context of the estimated amount of public financial participation needed to advance the current project plan). The option of creating a new district to maximize the duration of collecting increment and avoid local aid penalties presented the most feasible option for meeting the financing requirement. The Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) contemplates the adoption of a TIF plan by October 1, 1999 or the earliest date achievable under Statute. The attached schedule contemplates approval of a TIF Plan on the 18th of October 1999. 35 SUMMARY OF INITIAL PLAN FOR NEW DISTRICT Attached is a concept map showing the proposed boundaries of a new TIF district for the Phase I project area. The district boundary configuration is inclusive of the properties and right-of-ways that will be redeveloped/rebuilt as part of the Phase I project. The preliminary boundary concept is subject to modification prior to the public hearing on the proposed district. Staff would appreciate Council’s comments as it relates to the proposed district boundaries, prior to drawing the final proposed district configuration. An important step in creating new redevelopment TIF districts in Minnesota is a third party evaluation/analysis of the structures and site. Specifically, the Authority must find that 70% of the parcels comprising the district contain improvements and 50% of the buildings within the site are substandard in nature. A summary of the analysis is attached as Exhibit A of the EDA Resolution Designating Certain Buildings as Structurally Substandard with Redevelopment Project No. 1, discussed later in this report. It is important to note is that the proposed district area meets the aforementioned qualifications. These findings will be included and incorporated into the Tax Increment Financing Plan that will be considered as part of the public hearing process in October and can be discussed in more detail at that time. In addition to the above, the tax increment plan will deal with myriad issues related to the estimated scope of financing, project budget/activities, local contribution election and other matters required by Statute. Again, these findings will be included and incorporated into the Tax Increment Financing Plan that will be considered as part of the public hearing process in October. A schedule for the process of approving the TIF plan is attached to this report. BUSINESS SUBSIDY ISSUE The 1999 Legislature enacted new laws in 1999 related to the provision of public financing for private development. Chapter 116J.993 to 116J.995 sets forth standards that municipalities and development authorities must follow in granting business assistance. Basically, the legislation requires that municipalities and development agencies adopt a “policy” on the provision of business subsidies, holding a public hearing on the same before its adoption. The attached Resolution calls for a joint hearing on October 18, 1999 of the City Council and Economic Development Authority on setting criteria for granting business subsidies. This law became effective on August 1, 1999, and clear guidance on interpretation of the law has not been developed. It appears likely that the Phase I project will be exempt from the business subsidy law at this time. The Authority’s attorney has advised staff that the Authority may wish to ratify current economic development policies, i.e. development fund policy and TIF Policy, as the City and EDA’s business subsidy policy. Alternatively, the Authority may adopt a simplified policy statement that addresses the Statutory requirement while at the same time does not conflict with other development policies and goals. Staff felt that it was appropriate timing to consider this action given that: (1) the statute limits municipalities and development authorities ability to enter agreements to provide subsidies until such time a policy is adopted (for all projects); and (2) the Park Commons Phase I project could potentially be subject to the law, although it appears unlikely. Staff would propose that the 36 business subsidy policy be placed on a study session agenda for discussion in August or September. FALL 1999 DEMOLITION PROGRAM: An item of note in the scheduled activities, is the demolition of structures and utilities in parts of the Phase I area. A schedule is attached for the demolition program planned for this fall. On or around September 15, 1999, 16 single-family homes and two commercial structures will be removed from the site. In addition, streets will be excavated and closed and utilities will be removed from the sub-surface. Approval of bids for this contract is expected to be presented to Council for approval on September 7, 1999. Prior to the activity, the EDA must adopt a resolution designating structures as substandard. The importance of this action is to assure that the completion of demolition work will not conflict with or “negate” the required findings concerning the site improvement coverage or percentage of substandard buildings relating to qualifying a new TIF district. This allows the EDA to capitalize on desirable timing for completing this project component. BOND REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION The attached resolution declaring the official intent of the City to reimburse certain project expenditures from the proceeds of future bond proceeds sets forth the means to undertake project activities for the project now, and be reimbursed for those expenditures with bond proceeds at a later date. This action must be taken prior to incurring project expenditures that the Council or EDA may later wish to have reimbursed through bond proceeds. The amount of $15,000,000 recited in the resolution does not relate to a specific amount of planned expenditures but is estimated to be sufficient to cover the size of a tax-exempt bond issue for the project. Attachments: Resolution calling for public hearing on TIF district Proposed TIF District Boundary Map Schedule for establishment of TIF District Resolution calling for a joint public hearing on Business Subsidies Phase I-A Demolition Schedule Reimbursement Resolution Submitted by: David M. Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 37 RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PARK COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on Monday, October 18, 1999, at approximately 7:30 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, and the approval of a business subsidy, all pursuant to and accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995 in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plan and Program. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan and Program") and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283. The City Manager is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to October 18, 1999, and to place a copy of the Plan and Program on file in the City Manager’s office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. 38 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 39 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL FOR THE MODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARK COMMONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) As of August 9, 2018 August 16, 1999 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing. August 16, 1999 City Council calls for a joint public hearing with the EDA on establishing business subsidies criteria. August 16, 1999 City Council calls for public hearing on the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District. September 3, 1999 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). [Sent by August 31, 1999] September 15, 1999 Planning Commission reviews Modifications to determine if they are in compliance with City’s comprehensive plan. September 17, 1999 Fiscal/economic implications received by School District and County Board (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Sent by September 15, 1999] September 30, 1999 Confirm with the City whether building permits have been issued on the property to be included in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District. 40 October 4, 1999 Date of publication of hearing notice on business subsidies criteria (at least 10 days prior to hearing). [St. Louis Park Sun Sailor publication deadline September 30, 1999] October 4, 1999 Date of publication of hearing notice and map for the establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District and business subsidies (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). [St. Louis Park Sun Sailor publication deadline September 30, 1999] October 18, 1999 EDA considers the Modifications. October 18, 1999 City Council holds public hearing on setting business subsidies criteria. October 18, 1999 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1; the establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, and approving business subsidies and passes resolution approving the Plan. [Council packet information sent by October 11, 1999] Late 1999-Early 2000 Certify Plan with county and state. 41 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON THE ADOPTION OF CRITERIA FOR AWARDING BUSINESS SUBSIDIES. WHEREAS, the State Legislature has adopted Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the “Statute”) governing business subsidies granted by cities; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) and its Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) fit the definition of “grantor” in the Statute; and WHEREAS, each grantor is required to adopt a set of criteria for awarding business subsidies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. The City Council and the Board of Commissioners of the EDA shall jointly meet on Monday, October 18, 1999, at approximately 7:30 p.m.., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of criteria for awarding business subsidies in accordance with the Statute; and 42 Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing. City staff is authorized and directed to prepare draft criteria for review and approval. The City Manager is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City prior to October 18, 1999, and to place a copy of the proposed criteria on file in the City Manager's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 43 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99-96 DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures which may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a bond; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK (THE "CITY") AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City reasonably intends to make expenditures for the project described in Exhibit A (the "Project"), and reasonably intends to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of debt to be issued by the City in the maximum principal amount described in Exhibit A. 2. The City Manager is authorized to designate appropriate additions to Exhibit A in circumstances where time is of the essence, and any such designation shall be reported to the Council at the earliest practicable date and shall be filed with the official books and records of the City. 3. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 44 EXHIBIT A TO OFFICIAL INTENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUGUST 16, 1999 Date of Declaration Description of Project Maximum Principal Amount of Debt for Project August 16, 1999 Capital and administrative costs related to Park Commons Redevelopment Project $15,000,000 45 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c Meeting of August 16, 1999 8c. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 20A Improvements at Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 ½ Street – Project No. 99-06 This report considers public improvements in the vicinity of Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 ½ Street to address the public portion of the storm water in flood area 20A. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing Project No. 99-06, ordering Project No. 99-06, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids. Background: This project is a result of the Study of the 22 flood problem areas in St. Louis Park. The Study identified the specific flooding issue of each area, corrective alternatives to consider, cost estimates and a recommendation on alternatives to be implemented. City staff and its consultant WSB & Associates developed the construction plans and specifications for this area, which was identified as the Number One area of the priority listing. Discussion: The proposed project addresses the “public” storm water only. Corrective measures on private property will be undertaken by the private property owners, if they so desire, when and if the storm water utility and grant program are approved by the Council. The project follows the Study recommendation and provides for the extension of the storm sewer south on Wooddale Avenue approximately 221 feet, the installation of two (2) new large high velocity catch basins, the lowering of the west curb line and sidewalk and the removal and repaving of the street. An additional catch basin will be constructed at the low point of the curb in the intersection area. It is also proposed to remove and replace the existing bituminous trail to the west. The new trail would be designed to function as a channel for any overflow and take it to the low park area to the west. Financial Considerations: It is proposed that this “public” improvement be funded by the Sewer Utility Infrastructure Fund. Should the Council approve a storm water utility, it is recommended the funds be reimbursed. No special assessments are proposed for this project. The total cost for the proposed project is $108,000. A summary of the project costs and revenue sources is as follows: Project Cost: Construction $ 84,000 Contingency (15%) 12,500 Subtotal $ 96,500 Engineering/Administrative (12%) $ 11,500 TOTAL $108,000 46 Proposed Improvement Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated the project would be bid in August, awarded in September, and constructed in September and October. Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs estimated. Attachments: Resolution Map Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 47 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 99-06 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 99-06 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 99-06 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the storm water flood area No. 20A improvements at Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 ½ Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the storm water flood area No. 20A improvements at Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 ½ Street under Project No. 99-06 is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 99-06 is hereby established. 3. Project No. 99-06 is hereby ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement as prepared under the direction of the Director of Public Works are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The bids shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 48 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d* Meeting of August 16, 1999 *8d. Traffic Study No. 543: Property Owner/Business request to change parking restrictions from 15 minutes parking to one hour parking at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. This report considers the change in parking restrictions at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution No. 4635 and authorizing the change in parking restrictions from 15 minutes parking to one hour parking at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. Background: The City received a request from the property owner/business owner at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard to change the 15 minute parking restriction in front of their business. Due to the nature of their stores additional parking time is needed and is supported by the businesses. The proposed change in parking restrictions should help the current businesses with no adverse affect on neighboring businesses. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time: * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of one (1) hour parking signs may be utilized. 2. Deny the request. * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 49 RESOLUTION NO. _______ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING "ONE HOUR PARKING” AT 4813/4815 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 543 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. “One Hour Parking” at 4813/4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. 2. Rescind Resolution No. 4635 for the existing parking restriction at 4815 Minnetonka Boulevard. Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 50 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e* Meeting of August 16, 1999 *8e. Resolution Supporting Metro Transit Application For T21 Grant Resolution supporting a Metro Transit application for Federal grant for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(CMAQ) program fund to enhance transit service in St. Louis Park Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution ____ supporting Metro Transit grant application for T21 funds. Background: Metro Transit and LSA Design made a presentation to the City Council at a Study Session on August 9, 1999, outlining a proposed transit redesign for the Cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka. The redesign consists of a service concept based on a grid which reallocates transit service hours from some existing urban local service routes to new community connection routes. Increased frequency of service within St. Louis Park could greatly enhance the proposed service concept. The City Council suggested that Metro Transit make application for available State and Federal funds in order to increase available transit service hours in St. Louis Park. The attached resolution supports a Metro Transit application for Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(CMAQ) program funds. This support is a requirement of the grant application and strengthens the merit of the application since there is significant competition for these funds. Attachments: Resolution 99- Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 51 RESOLUTION NO. 99-90 A RESOLUTION OF CONTINUING SUPPORT OF A JOINT TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WITH METRO TRANSIT AND THE CITIES OF HOPKINS AND MINNETONKA AND OF PARTICIPATION WITH METRO TRANSIT IN THEIR APPLICATION FOR CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY(CMAQ) PROGRAM FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT MAJOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FOR RESIDENTS, EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND THE IMMEDIATE SUBREGION. WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been actively participating in a Transit Improvements Study with Metro Transit and the adjacent communities of Hopkins, and Minnetonka to enhance transit connections within their communities and provide reverse commute services for employees from outside their communities; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has made substantial commitments to achieving the goals and objectives of creating a Livable Community and enhancing its community-wide transit services; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park believes that improved transit service is a critical factor in reducing congestion, ensuring economic vitality, and meeting the demands of changing travel patterns; WHEREAS, the Metro Transit has worked with the City to develop major proposed improvements to the existing transit network in St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka; WHEREAS, the proposed improvements meet the service goals and criteria established by Transit Redesign; WHEREAS, the proposed major improvements are designed to reduce congestion, improve air quality, enhance economic vitality, and meet the demands of changing travel patterns; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby supports and is actively participating with Metro Transit in their application for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(CMAQ) program funds to implement major transit improvements for residents, employers and employees of St. Louis Park and the immediate subregion. 52 Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 53 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8f* Meeting of August 16, 1999 *8f. Request by Silvercrest Properties, Inc. for a 46-unit expansion to a senior assisted living facility including an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat for Silvercrest Addition, and Vacation of drainage and utility easements and trail easement 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard Case Nos. 99-14-CP, 99-15-S, and 99-16-VAC Recommended Action: • Motion to continue consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment until September 7, 1999. • Motion to continue consideration of preliminary and final plat of Silvercrest Addition until September 7, 1999. • Motion to continue Second Reading of vacation request until September 7, 1999. Background: At their August 2, 1999 meeting, the City Council continued consideration of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and preliminary plat until August 16, 1999 and set Second Reading of the vacation request for August 16, 1999, for the Silvercrest proposal. The two items were deferred in order for staff to determine whether there is a need for a bike trail along the north-south roadway and whether this would require additional right of way from the subject parcel. Council also directed staff to work with the developer determine a method of ensuring that nonemergency fire and police calls to the site would be reduced in the future. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the final plat on August 4, 1999 and the final plat is scheduled to be considered on August 16. At this time, the developer is requesting a continuation until the September 7, 1999 meeting. No representative of Silvercrest is available for the August 16 meeting. In addition, information from a consultant regarding the need for a bike trail needs further analysis by staff. Recommendation: Staff recommends continuance of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and Second Reading of the vacation request until September 7, 1999. Attachments: • Letter requesting continuance from Silvercrest Properties Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 54 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8g Meeting of August 16, 1999 8g. Request for Reconveyance of Tax Forfeited Land Related to Property at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. This report considers actions relating to the establishment and a tax increment financing district for the Phase I area of Park Commons and other related project actions. Recommended Actions: Motion approving Resolution Authorizing the Reconveyance of certain Tax-Forfeited Property and Requesting a Resale. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION: It has been discovered in the title examination of the property at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue that a portion of the site intended to be transferred for the medical office redevelopment project is tax-forfeited property that had been previously transferred to the City from the State of Minnesota. This condition calls for the City to perfect the title through the reconveyance of the property to the State with a subsequent resale of the property to the City by Hennepin County, which manages the lands on behalf of the State. TIMING/NEXT STEP Staff is attempting to gain a firm estimate from County staff on the timing of the reconveyance. Staff will report this to the City Council as soon as available. ATTACHMENT: • Resolution 55 RESOLUTION NO. 99-100 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN TAX- FORFEITED PROPERTY AND REQUESTING A RESALE WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park obtained a limited title from the State of Minnesota for the following tax-forfeited property (the “Property”): Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, except State Highway and except railroad right of way, including adjoining ½ of street and alley vacated, Block 163, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, And WHEREAS, in connection with the redevelopment of the area, the City of St. Louis Park and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) have agreed to transfer the Property (or a portion thereof) along with other real property for the purpose of commercial redevelopment in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute a deed reconveying the Property or any portion thereof to the State of Minnesota. 2. The City requests that the State sell fee title for the Property (or any portion thereof conveyed to the State) to the City. 3. City staff, officials and consultants are authorized to take all actions necessary to purchase the Property or any portion thereof from the State for reconveyance under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 16, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 56 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 9a Meeting of August 16, 1999 9a. Sidewalk and Trails Public Participation Report This report documents the public comments received to date on the Sidewalk and Trails Phase One Proposal. Recommended Action: Motion to accept this report for filing and direct staff to work to develop alternatives to the controversial components of the Phase One Proposal documented in this report. Background: At the March 22, 1999 Study Session, Council discussed the draft Sidewalks and Trails Master Plan as well as the following policy issues: • Funding mechanisms/approaches • Long term repair/replacement responsibilities • Snow removal responsibilities • Implementation Phasing and Schedule Council requested staff to develop a first priority proposal (Phase One Plan) with financing scenarios for further discussion. At the April 12, 1999 Study Session staff proposed a Phase One Plan with a detailed public participation process for Council discussion. Council directed staff to present the Phase One Plan to the public during the summer for their input. In addition, staff also presented Council at that time the process to be followed for adoption of the Master Plan. The Master Plan was then adopted on May 17 in conjunction with the adoption of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In an attempt to inform the public of the Master Plan and the proposed Phase One Plan, staff did the following during May, June, and July: • Presented the plans to various civic groups, commissions, and neighborhood gatherings • Published articles in the Park Perspective in April and June • Prepared and aired a video in July on Civic Channel 35 describing the plans • Published and mailed an informational brochure to every property in early July • Prompted an article in the July 14 issue of the Sun-Sailor • Held public open houses on July 22 and 27 on the plans to explain them and to obtain direct input from the public 57 Comments Received: As a result of the public participation process, many comments have been received directly by Council and staff as well as during the open house process. Staff has prepared a “Summary of Public Comments” (distributed last week) for the Council. In addition, comments continue to be received and the most recent ones will be distributed at the Council meeting on the 16th. The “Summary” with comments is intended to assist the Council in gauging public sentiment regarding the proposed Phase One Plan. They are also intended to provide Council with the necessary background needed to make an informed decision as to next steps and provide direction to City staff. A majority of the comments focused on issues related to the following sidewalk or trail segments: • W. 28th Street east of Trunk Highway 100 (Trail) • W. 28th Street west of Trunk Highway 100 (Sidewalks) • W. 33rd Street from Rhode Island Avenue to Virginia Avenue (Trail) • W. 16th Street from Louisiana Avenue to Hampshire Avenue (Sidewalks) • Hampshire Avenue from W. 16th Street to Cedar Lake Road (Sidewalks) • W. 41st Street from Trunk Highway 100 to Natchez Avenue (Sidewalks) • W. 26th Street from Trunk Highway 100 to France Avenue (Trail and Sidewalks) Other areas or issues that received significant comment include the following: • Minnetonka Boulevard west of the proposed Regional Trail at Aquila (Trail) • W. 38th Street from France Avenue to Excelsior Boulevard (Sidewalks) • Sidewalk maintenance (snow removal) • Property impacts (trees, walls, fences, yard size, valuation, aesthetics) • Concern over increased crime • Cost Comments received favoring sidewalks and trails have included: • Increased biker and pedestrian safety • Children First • Increased community livability (recreation, connections, access to transit, and public space) • Increased accessibility for the disabled • Reduces dependence on automobiles The following suggestions have been heard: • Put walks at the curbline • Narrow the streets - do not take more property 58 • Put walks on just one side of a street • Some sidewalks should be removed from the Phase One Proposal • Some sidewalks should be added to the Phase One Proposal • Do more “on street trails” to lessen property impacts • Let neighborhoods decide what is best in their respective area • Do less, this is too much Summary: Probably the most troubling aspect of the public discussion to date has been the skepticism of the public that the City intends to implement the plan regardless of public input. This creates the dilemma of meeting the expectations of those that would like to know exactly what is going to happen when and the sooner the better versus taking the time to carefully listen to all input and consider alternatives. The latter choice will frustrate those people looking for a quick resolution to this discussion. Nonetheless, it is staff’s recommendation that the Council take the time necessary to consider that public input and give direction to staff to address the major concerns that have been raised. As a result of the public input received, Council will likely want to answer the following questions in the process of deciding this community issue: • In there merit in continuing this community discussion? • What process will the Council utilize if they desire to continue to discuss this issue? • How is the public to be involved in these discussions? • Is a community (City) sidewalk system necessary? • Is a community (City) trail/bikeway system necessary? • Are the two (2) systems (sidewalks and trails) proposed in the Master and Phase One Plans too extensive? Are parts of the Plan inappropriate? • What about identified property impacts? How will they be mitigated, if at all? • What are the probable costs and how can the systems be financed? • How will the systems be maintained? • What happens after Phase One, if it happens? Next steps: Does the Council desire to continue this Community discussion? If so, staff recommends Council take time to consider the public input received and direct staff to address the major concerns that have been raised. Once major concerns are addressed, Council may desire to sponsor one final round of public review and input prior to deciding this issue. This process could take several months to complete. Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 59 Item # 9b* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM - FIRST FLOOR CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Timian, Sally Velick STAFF PRESENT: Dave Anderson, Greg Ingraham, Janice Loftus, Scott Moore 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Janice Loftus, Secretary, introduced Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant; Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator; and Dave Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator; and stated that they will be presenting the staff reports and addressing any questions on the agenda items. 2. Approval of Minutes of June 16, 1999 and July 7, 1999 Mr. Gothberg moved approval of minutes of June 16, 1999 and July 7, 1999 and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 with Carver, Gothberg, Morris voting in favor and Bissonnette abstaining. 3. Public Hearings: A. Case No. 99-19-PUD - Request of DRF Holdings for Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat approval for a medical office building, relocation of an existing billboard, and future restaurant for property located at 7200 and 7341 Highway 7 and 7250 Lake Street West. Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant presented a brief summary of the staff report and analysis of issues and stated that staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD subject to the 7 conditions outlined in the staff report with a finding that the proposed code modification to allow the billboard to be moved meets the conditions of the PUD ordinance, and with a modification to condition 4 to include a shared parking agreement to be filed between the restaurant site and the medical office building. 60 Mr. Garelick asked if the City has the right to remove a nonconforming billboard. Mr. Ingraham stated that if it is a nonconforming use, the City’s policy is to try to remove it. He said he did not know if the City has the right to remove it in this case. He showed the location of the billboard on the plan. Mr. Gothberg stated he believes that the billboard would be less conspicuous at the proposed new location. Mr. Garelick stated that the billboard, at its present location, is such an obvious eyesore. He said he does not want the present location of the billboard to reflect on the proposed development. Mr. Ingraham stated that the City and the developer have made a good effort to try to remove the billboard, but it really comes down to an ownership and financial issue. Mr. Garelick stated he would like to see some wording placed in the amendment where it could be shown that the relocation of the billboard is limited to this application and will not show precedence in other areas. Chair Morris asked staff to clarify what the Planning Commission is being asked to do. Mr. Ingraham stated that this is not an amendment to the text of City code, but rather a modification of the ordinance through a PUD to allow the billboard to be relocated in this specific case. Chair Morris stated that with adoption of the PUD, the Planning Commission is accepting the relocation of the billboard. Mr. Gothberg stated that he is happy to see the sidewalks along Louisiana and Lake Street, and asked if there is any consideration for a trail or sidewalk along Highway 7 along the edge of the property. He said we need to think in terms of public safety at that intersection. Mr. Ingraham stated that a sidewalk at that location was considered, but the highway department’s policy is not to allow a trail parallel to, and immediately adjacent to, Highway 7. He stated that staff asked Met Council if they would allow a transit stop at this location, but they would prefer this at another nearby location. Chair Morris said he believes that it is perceived that on the Lake Street side, the trail and sidewalk stop short of the second driveway into the development and doesn’t appear to carry on through the drive. Steve Doughty, Pope Associates, explained that the area is an existing sidewalk and it is the assumption that it will remain. 61 Chair Morris stated that, as a part of the development plan, there should be a continuous sidewalk on the south side of the property. Mr. Ingraham stated that staff is thinking about continuing an 8 foot asphalt sidewalk along that corner. Chair Morris opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chair Morris closed the public hearing. Mr. Garelick asked what precautions are being taken for pedestrians at this site. Mr. Ingraham stated that the plan is to establish the development and the trails to accept pedestrian crosswalks in the future. The crosswalks would have to actually go off the developer’s property and onto State right-of-way to cross Highway 7 and onto the City’s right-of-way to cross Louisiana Avenue. There is also a possibility that a signal at Louisiana and Lake Street could be accelerated by this development which would help the overall functioning of the intersection and give pedestrians an opportunity to cross at a different point. He stated that the long term plan is to have an interconnected signal system which considers stacking problems at peak times. Mike Denny of Frauenshuh was present to address questions. Mr. Garelick asked if the physicians had to be in the development within a certain time frame to honor existing or proposed leases. Mr. Denny stated that this was what was driving the development. Mr. Garelick asked what is happening at Meadowbrook. Mr. Denny stated that HealthSystem Minnesota (HSM) is expanding and moving some of the private practices out of the building. This is how the whole project was conceived a couple of years ago. Chair Morris asked if Frauenshuh had a restaurant tenant. Mr. Denny stated that he had not marketed the restaurant to date, but it would be a mid- range up-scale restaurant similar to a Sydney’s. He said he feels confident that he could get the restaurant leased and up and running, but is focusing on the leasing of the medical building at this time. Mr. Garelick asked that the major traffic patterns to reach the medical office building and restaurant be clarified. 62 Mr. Doughty used a diagram to explain that the public would be coming off Highway 7 and using a left or right hand turn at Louisiana and take Lake Street west or come from the south on Louisiana. Chair Morris stated that it would be anticipated that there be a return pile up at the Louisiana and Lake Street left turn lane to get back onto Highway 7 which further points to the need for a signalized intersection. Mr. Garelick noted that the traffic from Sam’s Club is also an issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Denny stated that signalization will be a part of the development agreement. Ms. Bissonnette asked for clarification of tree preservation. Mr. Ingraham stated that the general concept is that there would be a financial escrow from the developer for the City’s use. It would be up to the City’s discretion as to where the trees would be placed and would need to be worked out with the Park and Recreation Department. Mr. Garelick asked if the doctors who are involved in renting are looking at any equity structure investing into the building. Mr. Denny stated that there are three doctors involved, but that Frauenshuh would be the majority owner and would manage the property. Mr. Garelick asked how Mr. Denny felt about competing with the other non-profits in a rental situation. Mr. Denny said he feels confident and that letters of intent have been signed for approximately 20,000 - 30,000 square feet. He said he feels coming to the City in a cooperative effort helped to level the playing field and make sure the rents were comparable to the market place and also that the taxes are in line. Chair Morris stated that the motion should include the clarification made by Commissioner Garelick to the fact that the substance of the PUD related to the relocation of the billboard should be in line with the ordinance of the City and not actually set a precedence by the Planning Commission. This site represents a unique situation and unique measures are needed in order to deal with the development of the site as relative to the location of the billboard on the site. Ms. Bissonnette moved to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD subject to the 7 conditions outlined in the staff report, a finding that the proposed code modification to allow the billboard to be moved meets the conditions of the PUD ordinance and, with a modification to condition 4 that also includes a shared 63 parking agreement to be filed between the restaurant site and the medical office building. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, and Morris voting in favor. Mr. Garelick stated he believes this is a good step for the City and the developer to develop an area that has had so many problems. B. Case No. 99-17-S - Request of St. Luke’s Lutheran Church for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval - St. Luke’s Addition (replat) for property located at 5524 W. 41st Street Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report and stated that staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Chair Morris stated he is concerned that the preliminary and final plat indicate that, to the rear of the house through the parking lot area, there was once an overhead wire that goes from the pole to the church, but there is no indication that there should be an easement reserved there. Mr. Moore stated he believes that the utility company did respond to this and they would just require the typical 10 foot utility easement. Chair Morris noted that West “41th” Street should be West “41st” Street. Chair Morris stated that, in general, he does not see any particular problems with the plat in order to separate the independent residence from the church, and confirmed that there would be separate water and sewar to church and house. Mr. Garelick asked staff to clarify the location of the church in relation to the local continuing education building. Mr. Moore stated the church is across the street from Brookside Community Center. Chair Morris opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chair Morris closed the public hearing. A representative of St. Luke’s was present to answer questions by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gothberg moved that the City Council approve the combined preliminary and final plat with conditions as recommended by staff and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, and Morris voting in favor. 4. Old Business: None 5. New Business 64 A. Consent Agenda - None B. Other New Business i. Case No. 99-13-ZA -- Request of Vladimir Velikson to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow restaurants with liquor to be permitted with conditions in the C-2 District Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report and stated that staff recommends changes to the Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report, which make restaurants and clubs and lodges with liquor permitted with conditions in the C-2 and O districts, and which allow accessory bars as a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Garelick asked how this related to the Texa Tonka Bowling Lanes. Mr. Moore stated that the difference between the Texa Tonka Bowling Lanes and the Texa Tonka Shopping Center is that in the Zoning Ordinance there is not a differentiation between a facility that just serves beer and wine versus one that serves hard liquor. The liquor license does differentiate between the two. When Texa Tonka lanes wanted to change their liquor license application, there really wasn’t a change in the zoning ordinance. They were still in the category of a private indoor entertainment establishment with liquor. This proposed use would be very similar to the Texa Tonka Lanes with the exception that people could only get the alcohol with their meals. Mr. Garelick asked if there are limitations on the type of liquor. Mr. Moore stated that it could be any type of liquor. Mr. Garelick asked what the opinion of the developer was that there has never been a liquor license in the Texa Tonka. Mr. Moore stated he believes the reason for this is that the property was developed long before the zoning ordinance and the conditions for any type of land use that could have liquor. There are a number of nonconformities in the shopping center property which, in effect, prohibit the possibility of a restaurant with liquor. Mr. Garelick questioned whether the current tenant was going to expand and said he is concerned as to whether or not this is the proper way to stimulate the Texa Tonka shopping center. Chair Morris stated that he found it difficult to differentiate between what an accessory bar is as opposed to a restaurant with liquor. He said he envisions Applebee’s as a restaurant with an accessory bar and gave an analysis to try to differentiate. 65 Mr. Moore explained the definitions for a restaurant with liquor and a restaurant with an accessory use. Chair Morris asked why the CUP is used to distinguish between certain uses in certain districts and said he believes that the City is lightening restrictions to allow a better use to improve business on the property. He is concerned with the nonconformities of the center not being brought into conformance. Mr. Garelick asked if this change would permit wine to be sold at a bagel shop similar to the shop on Dakota and Minnetonka Boulevard. Chair Morris stated that this could happen and there is an extension of this outside of the petition before the Commission. Mr. Carver stated that the proposed change would not induce bagel shops to start serving wine and beer, but it rather brings the law down to meet this particular use. It may be appropriate for the ordinance to be changed to be made more consistent. Mr. Gothberg asked, with these proposed changes, how many other establishments would become nonconforming. Mr. Moore stated that the proposed changes would not create any nonconfoming situations. However, it could potentially bring a nonconfoming situation into conformance. At the present time, any restaurant which serves alcohol has to have a 100 foot setback. Mr. Carver stated that in some situations it makes sense to have the required 100 foot setback reduced to 25 feet, but here there would be many more nonconforming uses that would be made irrelevant through the changes in the ordinance. Mr. Moore stated that, as the ordinance stands, before a CUP can be obtained, all the nonconformities on the site have to be removed. Staff looked at all the regulations and thought there must be a simpler solution and better alternative, but are still keeping the health and safety of the City in mind. Mr. Gothberg questioned that to correct all nonconformities in Texa Tonka, the buildings would have to be raised and the site rebuilt. Mr. Moore concurred. Chair Morris stated that as a Planning Commission we want to stimulate development and questioned whether changing this stimulates Texa Tonka to increase business that may be necessary to bring tenants and people shopping, or is this just allowing another back door to get around the conditions that are needed to improve this property. Most C- 2 District malls are conforming and this particular one is not. He stated his dilemma is 66 that the specific need being presented is reasonable, but he is looking at the impact on the entire zoning philosophy and use of the CUP. Mr. Garelick said he is concerned that if the Commission goes ahead on this, it could give a green light for other places to start serving alcohol. Mr. Moore stated that this could not happen to the bagel shop at Dakota and Minnetonka Boulevard, referred to by Mr. Garelick, because that particular use is located in a C-1 District. He stated that most major C-2 Districts are located on Excelsior Boulevard, Wayzata Boulevard and a few on Minnetonka. Staff does not believe that we would be giving up anything or creating adverse affects on the neighboring properties, because we would still have conditions of approval that would need to be satisfied, but would be concerned if allowed in a C-1 District. Mr. Garelick asked if this could happen in Westwood Shopping Center. Mr. Moore explained the requirements and said that potentially this could be possible, but probably not because the City limits the number of liquor licenses. Chair Morris indicated that there are both CUP and liquor license restrictions that focus on this and what we are discussing is the need to use the tool of development by a CUP spurring development rather than allowing them to develop without improvement. Jim Yarosh, attorney from Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A., representing Fine Properties, indicated that Fine Properties does support this application and would like to see this use in the shopping center. He clarified that the proposed restaurant would go into a separate location. He stated that Chair Morris raised an interesting point on whether or not a CUP should be used to stimulate development. The problem is that it might have an adverse economic affect if you are going to require the use to meet all these nonconformities. This way you can get a nice use for the center with permitted conditions and controls to follow. He asked Mr. Moore to clarify the bufferyard requirements in relation to Texa Tonka Mall. Mr. Moore stated that there is an adequate width to provide what is required. He indicated that staff is comfortable that reductions could be made to meet bufferyard requirements. Ms. Bissonnette said she believes it is nice to have the Texa Tonka Center thrive. She questioned if there is a way to take some of the bufferyard requirements and work with the owner of Texa Tonka to help improve that area, i.e. plant trees in area to make it a nicer looking place. She indicated that it seems that the owner has not taken much pride to do that, and if he did do that there may be more tenants who want to use that space. Mr. Yarosh stated that from his perspective, the owner has been in contact with staff to try to find ways to help revitalize the area. 67 Chair Morris stated that it appears that of all the CUP’s in the C-2 District, the restaurant with liquor is the most innocuous one that is in that category. He questioned whether this is the edge that opens the door that starts a little bit more trade into an area that needs development or are we making a tradeoff. Mr. Carver suggested that the Planning Commission not move ahead on this decision until all the nonconformities on the property are determined. Chair Morris and Mr. Garelick concurred. Chair Morris stated that we need to know more about what nonconformities there are before we can decide on this. The Planning Commission may be willing to lose those nonconformities with the power of the conditional use permit in this circumstance. Maybe we could modify restaurants with liquor to be a percentage of nonconformities that go ahead without a CUP or percentage of nonconformities that must have one. He suggested directing staff to research the area and bring back what nonconformities exist on the site, the impact on proposed businesses and what restrictions should be placed. Mr. Moore stated that the City could require conditions on both a CUP and PUD. Chair Morris confirmed that if the nonconformities were identified, without changing the ordinance, the applicant could go to BOZA and ask for variances on the nonconformities and get a CUP. If BOZA approves the nonconformities, the Planning Commission could look at the BOZA report and approve the CUP for this particular circumstance based on BOZA variances. Mr. Yarosh stated that the problem with this is that the variances are quite strict and not the desired approach. Another possibility, like the City of Minneapolis, may be to allow nonconforming structures, but not allow any additions or improvements. Mr. Moore stated that St. Louis Park does permit a nonconforming use which you cannot expand, intensify or alter. Mr. Yarosh stated that the City of Minneapolis does allow nonconforming buildings to improve more radically than what is typically allowed if certain conditions are met. It takes away from the ability to eventually get rid of nonconforming uses which could be the goal, but it allows, when the situation is right and fits the adjacent neighborhood, that you can get some improvement and investment in the property. Chair Morris agreed and stated that too often in years past a specific problem comes up that does not meet the zoning code and the attempt is to change the zoning code to allow everybody to do what they are doing. 68 Mr. Moore stated staff would recommend proposing the changes in the Office District as well. Chair Morris indicated that the issue is whether to approve a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as recommended by staff or to direct staff to research additional information on the specific nonconformities on this site. Mr. Carver moved to table the request until staff can respond to the specific request by the Planning Commission as to what the non-permitted uses are currently, as well as the impact of a zoning text amendment on other C-2 Commercial and Office District sites. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, and Morris voting in favor. Mr. Carver indicated the fact that Mr. Velikson is requesting a change in the Zoning Ordinance to allow a restaurant with liquor as a permitted use with conditions, which would not require existing nonconformities to be corrected, illustrates a situation that the City has to be vigilant in overseeing what the current ordinances are and if they are working as they were intended to. He said pursuing additional information would provide the right information in order to go forward. 6. Communications A. Park Common West Task Force Recommendations B. Recent City Council Action - July 19, 1999 C. Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals - June 24, 1999 D. Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals - July 22, 1999 E. Other 7. Miscellaneous - None 8. Adjournment Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 69 Item # 9c* City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes - March 25, 1999 First Floor Community Room - City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ Present Commission members: John Archbold, Marc Berg, Abby Bennett, Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin, David Lee, Betty Merritt, Judith Moore and Chris Smith Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary The meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m. Approval of Minutes After members introduced themselves, it was moved by Judith Moore and seconded by Herb Isbin to approve the February minutes. Motion passed unanimously. Reports Herb Isbin reported that he attended the Albuquerque Human Rights Board’s tenth annual award program; Isbin said this group’s high quality program is something the St. Louis Park commission should try to work toward. Isbin also raised the question of whether the St. Louis Park award must be presented to a St. Louis Park resident. Isbin felt that non-residents who worked in St. Louis Park should also be eligible. Judith Moore shared the Shoreview Human Rights commission’s booklet for children on human rights. Martha McDonell shared a letter and photos sent by Eileen Soderberg, the recipient of the commission’s 1998 Human Rights award. McDonell noted that the photos will be added to the commission’s scrapbook. McDonell also shared the most recent bias offense report from the police department. Old Business Laurel Higgins explained the various components of the commission’s 1999 work plan to the new members. Higgins then shared a rough draft of the commission’s year end report for the City Council. Members went through the report and suggested minor revisions. Higgins will include the revised report with the April meeting notice. After the report is finalized at the April meeting, the report will be forwarded to the City Council. Strategic Action Plan 1 – Phone Line 70 Herb Isbin commented that he felt the recorded message has been improved but still needs refining. Isbin wants the reference to “zero tolerance” removed since some discriminatory practices are, in fact, exempt from the law or legal. Therefore, the phrase “zero tolerance” is technically incorrect. Isbin also commented that he likes the fact that Martha McDonell is now answering the human rights phone line during office hours. Martha McDonell reported that there were two calls to the phone line since the last meeting. Because both calls could be handled by staff, she did not refer the callers to a commission member. McDonell reported that one person needed emergency housing: she was referred to the Housing Authority. The second caller was asking whether a private swim school could limit swim class membership to senior citizens. McDonell found that there is no City ordinance that supercedes the State statute--it is legal under State law to set age criteria for senior programming. McDonell gave this information to the caller and suggested that the caller contact Project Soar, an organization that might be able to suggest an alternative water exercise program. Herb Isbin commended McDonell’s responses to the callers. Isbin asked if the City of St. Louis Park offers domestic partner benefits to its employees. McDonell responded that the City’s benefits package is currently under review by an employee committee and perhaps the commission could make some suggestions for the committee’s considerations. Judith Moore suggested that the City’s Human Resources Manager speak to the commission at a future meeting about City policies. Strategic Action Plan 2 – Public Awareness Campaign Herb Isbin asked commissioners to review his revised draft of the commission’s brochure so that he can incorporate changes and bring a revised version to the commission’s April meeting for discussion. Several commissioners asked about the feasibility of creating a brochure similar to the Shoreview piece or using existing materials and working with the Children First initiative to educate children and families about human rights issues. Laurel Higgins noted that the commission’s action plan includes cable television programs, speakers at public events, features in the Sun-Sailor, and other public awareness activities--new commissioners might consider some of these activities to work on. Strategic Action Plan 3 – School Support Judith Moore gave new members background on the history of the commission’s involvement with the school district’s diversity plan and its strategic planning initiative. Moore then reported on her efforts with the Action Plan 5 task force—the group charged with changing negative perceptions about the school district. The task force has been addressing diversity issues because they believe this is a concern, although there is no data. Moore noted that the task force has no 71 solid data to rely upon and there is no time to conduct new research and still meet the school district’s May deadline. Therefore, the task force has been forced to make assumptions about the types of negative assumptions and who holds those assumptions. The task force felt most of the negative perceptions are held by individuals who do not have children in school district or who are not involved with the district. Moore felt there is a percentage of students, however, whose needs not being met by the school district. New Business Herb Isbin brought up the issue of creating some kind of protocol for members to follow when dealing phone line callers. Isbin asked commissioners to review materials on State statute. He felt the commission must be careful not to intercede where it has no expertise nor should it give the impression that it investigates complaints. Further, the commission should not offer to provide support that somehow counters state agencies charged with handling these matters. Commission members felt referral is fine as long as alternatives are suggested, and it is explained that the commission does not have enforcement authority. David Lee agreed that it was important to establish a protocol in case there are questions later. Lee felt it would be a good idea to track calls and report what action was taken and why. That way, the commission can periodically review its actions to ensure they are within the broad guidelines the commission sets for itself. Laurel Higgins asked new members if they would like to sign up to work on portions of the Human Rights Commission’s work plan. Dave Lee offered to work on any project related to the phone system, cable television or communications. Chris Smith offered to work on Action Plan 2 and educational projects. Abby Bennett offered to help with school support beginning in June. Betty Merritt offered to work on Action Plan 3, as well. Judith Moore suggested establishing an ongoing relationship with Mia Phillips, education diversity coordinator. Martha McDonell told new members that she is preparing an orientation and will be contacting them to schedule a short orientation session. Adjournment Moved by Judith Moore and seconded by John Archbold to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Schwartz Recording Secretary 72 Item # 9d* City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1999 First Floor Community Room - City Hall Present Commission members: John Archbold, Marc Berg, Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin, David Lee, Betty Merritt, Judith Moore, and Chris Smith. Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Kim Olson, Recording Secretary Abby Bennett was absent. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Approval of Minutes With the following correction, it was moved to accept the March minutes. Betty Meritt’s name should be added to the list of commissioners present. Approval of Agenda With the following correction, the agenda was approved as presented. Herb Isbin mentioned that commissioner term limits still need to be corrected and asked Ms. McDonell to follow up on that. Reports Herb Isbin reported that he would like to add the word creed to the Human Rights phone line. He then commended Ms. McDonell on her work with the phone line. Chris Smith reported that the League of Minnesota Cities recently approved the start of a diversity task force. The question was raised on who could apply for this task force. Mr. Smith stated he would inquire further on the subject and distribute information if needed. David Lee reported that he felt the procedure for contacting the Police stated on the phone line may not be accurate. It was decided that Mr. Lee look into the matter further. Martha McDonell reported that the commission meeting dates had been set for the year 2000. Due to a religious holiday in April, it was unanimously moved to reschedule the April meeting for Tuesday the 18th, 2000. Ms. McDonell asked for a voluteer to fill out a survey mailed by the Dept. of Human Rights of St. Paul. Laurel Higgins responded that she would handle the responsibility. 73 Ms. McDonell then gave a brief update on the topic of age discrimination in housing that was brought up in a previous meeting. She indicated that housing specifically designated for seniors may discriminate based on age. Ms. McDonell then inquired on how much involvement the Commission would want in festivals and fairs. Laurel Higgins indicated she was interested and the Commisssion should receive more information on the topic. Herb Isbin suggested having the Human Resources Manager for the City and the Human Rights Commission work together to inform the public on what the city is doing. Presentation Gretchen Wronka of the Hennepin County Library and Judie Adams of the St. Louis Park Library spoke on the diversity outreach program of the libraries. Ms. Wronka stated that the library should be a focal point for learning about others and a place to introduce diversity to the younger generations. She indicated the kinds of books the library is receiving and mentioned that “foreign language” is now referred to as “world language”. Ms. Adams said the emphasis is on drawing people into the library with a welcoming atmosphere. However, she stated, it is difficult to reach some parts of the community. Ms. Wronka stated that books need to reflect the community and interactive learning should take place. Marc Berg asked how often books and resources are updated. Ms. Wronka stated that a good portion of the books are regularly updated or replaced. Ms. Adams said about fifty new books a week come into the St. Louis Park library. Mr. Berg then asked how much of the budget was dedicated to new books? Ms. Adams replied that the library uses sixty percent of the budget to purchase new materials. Judith Moore asked if the same books were ordered for all the libraries. Ms. Adams replied that subject studies are used to determine what books should be ordered. Ms. Wronka added that the libraries used subject headings for less discriminating and friendly terms. Herb Isbin suggested the libraries children’s programs focus on getting children from various ethnic backgrounds involved together. Ms. Adams stated the programs do involve a fair number of children of various backgrounds. Ms. Wronka stated that the libraries need to incorporate the schools and target specific grades. She said materials need to be given to parents to help them understand the library system. Laurel Higgins asked if there was a program in place where the children can be picked up and brought to the library. Ms. Wronka said the idea was possible and had been brought up in the past. John Archbold arrived at 7:37 p.m. 74 Martha McDonell asked how the Commission can help the cause. She suggested that handouts given be given out at special events and advertisements could be made over cable television. Ms. Adams mentioned that just passing the word to others and referring people to the library would help. She suggested bringing materials to neighborhood groups. Herb Isbin asked if the library had meeting rooms for public use. Ms. Adams stated that they do have a room available but it is only for non-profit organizations. Judith Moore mentioned how difficult it is to get books from other countries. Ms. Wronka mentioned that Hennepin County is looking for a community organization with project ideas to be part of a joint-funding project. Martha McDonell suggested that library information should be distributed in new residents packets. Strategic Action Plan One: Receiving, Responding and Reporting Calls Martha McDonell reported that there had been one call phoned in since that last meeting. Judith Moore responded to the call. The call was from a woman who felt that she may have been discriminated against because she was Russian. A meeting had been called to discuss the woman’s crying child. Ms. Moore suggested that she talk to Westside Mediation. By the time Ms. Moore and the woman spoke again, the situaton had been resolved already. Ms. Moore and Marc Berg both felt that some sort of training should be discussed on how to handle and deal with phone calls received on the phone line. David Lee suggested that a procedure book for all commissioners should be prepared. Mr. Lee and Mr. Smith were both appointed to work as a team to respond to this need and research information relating to it. It was suggested that a secondary call procedure be formed. Herb Isbin made the point that as a commissioner, each member can direct and provide information to the callers but cannot directly interfere or take action. Martha McDonell then clarified the purpose of the phone line and the level of service that should be provided to the callers New Business The memo submitted by Marc Berg was discussed. The memo raised the question of why human rights are important and what can the commission do to get back in touch with the people. Mr. Berg suggested that the commission might think about sponsoring a forum on current topics relating to human rights issues. Judith Moore suggested sponsoring the forum at the library to reach people with different mind sets. 75 Laurel Higgins agreed with the idea of a panel of speakers. Betty Merritt suggested choosing attractive gathering places that are already familiar to people. John Archbold suggested that a team be formed to discuss the matter. John Archbold, Marc Berg, Laurel Higgins and Betty Merrit were appointed to the team. Herb Isbin suggested the Commission receive updates from the City’s Human Resources Dept. on the status of the Affirmation Action plan. Adjournment It was moved by Judith Moore and seconded by David Lee to adjourn the meeting. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kim Olson, Recording Secretary 76 Item # 9e* City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes – May 19, 1999 First Floor Community Room – City Hall Present Commission members: John Archbold, Marc Berg, Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin, David Lee, Betty Merritt, and Chris Smith. Staff: Martha McDonell, Staff Liaison and Kim Olson, Recording Secretary Abby Bennett and Judith Moore were absent. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Approval of Minutes It was moved by David Lee, seconded by Mark Berg, to approve the minutes as presented. Approval of Agenda The agenda of the night’s meeting was approved. Reports Herb Isbin reported that he had researched human rights in several healthcare facilities by inquiring on the facilities patient’s bill of rights. He found that not all protected areas were listed in these bills of rights. Isbin spoke to a patient representative that stated they would try to include it in the next time it was redone. It was then discussed that it was not required by State law that facilities have a bill of rights for patients. Martha McDonell reported that another notice for senior housing came in the mail. She also received a survey from the Roy Wilkins Center for Human Relations and Social Justice. McDonell asked for a volunteer to complete the survey. Mark Berg suggested sending in the Commission’s year-end report. Laurel Higgins volunteered to complete the survey. McDonell clarified the term limits to the Commission. She stated that when a new commission member begins in the middle of a term, the new member must complete the term they are filling and not begin a new one. However, the current Commission members may determine what Commission seat the new member fills when there are multiple seats open. McDonell then identified when each Commissioners term expires. In response to Herb Isbin’s inquiry, McDonell stated that the City of St. Louis Park does have a home rule charter. Mark Berg asked what makes the home rule charter different from the other forms of government. Chris Smith stated that with the home rule charter, the City could make 77 adjustments outside of the State Statute. McDonell then informed the Commission that she has ordered Chapter 363 booklets. McDonell stated that the deadline for the gay pride parade had already passed. Martha McDonell also shared the times and dates of events and activities of Parktacular in June. She said it was possible the Commission could set up a booth for the two days of Share Fair. It was brought up that the Commission could participate in the Parktacular parade. McDonell told the Commission the orientation books were done and handed them out to the newer members. Herb Isbin reported that he would like to contact various associations in St. Louis Park and research how diverse they were. Laurel Higgins suggested moving this item to the end of the meeting under new business or scheduling it for the next meeting. Strategic Action Plan One: Receiving, Responding, and Reporting Calls Martha McDonell reported that an unknown person had called. The call was very sketchy and only the address of the caller was clear; the caller did not indicate why they had called. McDonell sent out a thank you note and commission brochure to the address named on the phone line. David Lee suggested that the call be reported to Sergeant Kramer who may be able to check if there was a history of violence connected to the address. McDonell also received a call from a woman who wanted to speak to a Commission member and the call was passed on to Laurel Higgins. The caller was a parent at the Senior High School who was hoping to plan a weeklong diversity program for the start of the next school year. She asked for support from the Commission and if money could be donated to the project. Higgins informed her that she would have to consult the Commission on these issues. It was suggested that a letter to the Commission and the City Council be written. Higgins stated that if money couldn’t be given they could come up with ideas and plans. McDonell suggested that the Commission or the City might be able to help with any printing needs. Mark Berg felt that involving the recipients of the Human Rights Award would be a good idea. Laurel Higgins felt that support should be shown in the schools. Chris Smith and David Lee discussed the meeting they had arranged at the last Commission meeting. The objective for the meeting was to discuss the procedures to be followed when responding to a call from the Human Rights phone line. David Lee suggested adding more resources to the referral list and that his major concern was following the proper protocol procedures. Laurel Higgins mentioned that all names on the referral list had agreed to be placed on it. Marc Berg questioned if there was a set protocol for answering the phone line. He said a protocol should be established specifically for handling the incoming calls. 78 The discussion then turned to the topic of Commission members that meet outside regular Commission meetings. Herb Isbin felt that all meetings are public and should be posted. Martha McDonell stated the posting requirements she was familiar with. Chris Smith mentioned that it might only apply when there are enough members for a quorum. Laurel Higgins suggested that this item be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Strategic Action Plan Two: Public Awareness Campaign Laurel Higgins stated that she was comfortable with the brochure as it is. Several suggestions were made to change the coloring of the brochure to make it uniform with the City; focus not on the word prejudice but on diversity, cooperation and good will; make the mission statement consistent with the by-laws; and to mention what constitutes a hate crime and the steps to follow to report it. Marc Berg, Betty Merritt, and Laurel Higgins met outside of the regular Commission meeting to discuss forming and organizing a forum of speakers to discuss human rights in current events and the Kosovo issue. Marc Berg had contacted several interested parties who would be willing to speak at such a forum. Merritt also spoke to a professor who was interested in participating in the forum. John Archbold asked what position the speakers would take. Merritt and Higgins stated that it had been too early into the planning to ask. Herb Isbin felt that guidelines for the forum and the speakers should be drawn up. Marc Berg suggested that a single question be asked to the panel of speakers. Berg also pointed out that the objective of the panel should be to focus on human rights issues. Strategic Action Plan Three: School Support Judith Moore submitted a memo to the Commission on the progress of the strategy groups for the School’s Strategic Plan. She stated that her group’s action plan called for: hiring teachers of ethnic backgrounds, a student center to be used as a resource center for issues of diversity with a multicultural resource person, and annual surveys to track improvements. Marc Berg felt that Moore and her group were proposing some very concrete ideas. Old Business Laurel Higgins suggested that maybe the Commission could give autographed books to the library. New Business Laurel Higgins and Martha McDonell gave a brief report on the MN Fair Housing Center Hate Crimes seminar that they attended on April 27th. Higgins stated that the speakers and information were valuable but the seminar was poorly attended. Both felt that the seminar was worth attending. 79 Martha McDonell reported that a group from Ohio was focusing attention on education efforts in their police department. She stated that they also use block captains to work with the Police Department. David Lee felt that training should be provided for new officers regarding the Human Rights Commission. Herb Isbin asked what a block captain does. David Lee responded that it is a form of community orientated policing. A block captain leads people in the same neighborhood to meet, watch out for one another, and talk about issues. Isbin asked if the police department organized this and if there is a relationship between the neighborhood associations and block captains. McDonell stated that some neighborhood leaders are also block captains but the same person does not need to be both. David Lee felt it would be a good idea for the Human Rights Commission to meet with the block captains. Martha McDonell offered to give a presentation. Set Agenda for Next Meeting The date for the next meeting was moved to June 9th. Adjournment It was moved by Betty Merritt, seconded by John Archbold to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 p.m. 80 Item # 9f* August 6, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT A W W A OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,119.75 ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.70 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 101.11 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 327.96 ANGEL ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,050.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 830.45 BANNERS TO GO UNREALIZED REVENUE 58.12 BARON, EILEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 175.42 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 193.67 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 63.96 BLOMBERG, JIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 111.35 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 226.67 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 119.71 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 89.80 CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 3,986.30 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,625.33 CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 481.55 CERTIFIED POWER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 330.17 CLOSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,127.50 COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,497.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,207.40 DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 100.56 DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 294.93 DELEGARD TOOL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 181.54 DREIER, LORI A STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 626.85 ECONOMICS PRESS INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 185.30 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 120.00 ELAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 896.72 81 ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00 EP ELECTRIC PUMP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 372.19 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FASTENAL COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 473.67 FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 4,927.78 FOWLER ELECTRIC COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 326.94 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 174.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 321.89 GIWOYNA, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 45.25 GOLD COUNTRY INC UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 996.20 GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,695.00 GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 4,377.50 HACH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.29 HALLBERG MARINE INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,846.71 HAMMER, MIKE ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES - EXEMPT 110.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 3,314.07 HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 5,538.24 HOME DEPOT/GECF SMALL TOOLS 787.55 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 158.64 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,978.49 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 44.46 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 347.26 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 396.54 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 193.83 J H LARSON COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 47.00 JACQUELINE BOWKER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 56.97 JAMES BROS GENERAL SUPPLIES 495.00 JOHNSTON-MADISON, CLAUDIA M OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 170.00 KEITH DAHLING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 58.73 KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 420.00 82 KIENENBERGER, BRIDGET OFFICE SUPPLIES 242.21 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.17 KRAMER ESTATE, GRACE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 40.56 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 916.50 LANENBERG, JAMES CLOTHING - tax exempt 30.00 LUSE, JOHN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 172.00 MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 23.02 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,080.00 MCI WORLDCOM TELEPHONE 10.68 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 138.66 METROCALL TELEPHONE 30.66 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL NOTES PAYABLE 53,280.00 MIDWEST CHILDRENS RESOURCE CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 MIND SHARP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,000.00 MINN COMMERCE DEPT GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.00 MINN RECREATION & PARK ASSN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 20.00 MINN UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 44.85 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 30,860.31 MINNESOTA WANNER GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.69 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 34.36 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 8,363.45 NORTHERN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,023.49 NOVARTIS NUTRITION CORP. GENERAL CUSTOMERS 7,754.94 NPSI TRAINING TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 710.00 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 370.86 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 694.82 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,900.00 POST BOARD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. EQUIPMENT PARTS 76.04 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,011.81 PROEX PHOTO KNOLLWOOD 24001 GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.60 PUMP & METER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,452.58 83 RADIO SHACK EQUIPMENT PARTS 390.27 RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,073.58 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,943.75 ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 2.39 RYDER STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 630.00 RYDER TRS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 115.02 S & S WORLDWIDE GENERAL SUPPLIES 373.67 SELA INVESTMENTS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SLP POLICE RESERVE GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.41 SLP ROTARY FOUNDATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 126.00 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS 394.33 SPECIAL COMPENSATION FUND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 4,357.25 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (44.86) ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS OTHER ADVERTISING 538.89 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 604.66 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 835.09 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.08 TEENS ALONE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,000.00 THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 334.00 TIFT, ANNA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 128.88 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 203.37 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO TIRES 168.27 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 40.73 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 0.00 UTNE READER GENERAL SUPPLIES 950.00 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,202.08 VANGUARD CRAFTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 251.29 VAUGHAN, JIM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 273.76 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 64.71 W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 148.04 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (53.06) WARNING LITES OF MN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.30 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 4,847.64 WAYTEK GENERAL SUPPLIES 60.75 WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS OTHER CONTRACTUAL 2,437.50 84 SERVICES WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,080.18 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 47.53 ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.91 ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.73 202,921.89 August 13, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ACE SUPPLY COMPANY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 81.47 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,626.68 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 224.00 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 531.38 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 365.45 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 123.00 AVR INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 327.89 AWWA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 150.00 BACHMAN'S LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 4,011.79 BAKKE, ROBERT CLOTHING - tax exempt 60.00 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.00 BILL, DONNA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.70 BISPALA, KATHERINE E OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 445.50 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,906.43 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 132.45 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 298.40 BRIDGCO DOCKS & LIFTS INC BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 13,438.67 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BURTON EQUIPMENT INC SMALL TOOLS 838.16 85 CALHOUN TOWERS APARTMENTS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 600.00 CARUFEL APPRAISALS LAND 1,200.00 COIE, CONNIE E INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 72.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) CREATIVE DESIGN & FINISH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,397.00 CRILEY, KATHI L OFFICE SUPPLIES 60.31 CROWN TROPHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.00 CURTIN, KEN LIQUOR, INTOX-OFF SALE 500.00 CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,957.15 DRYWALL SUPPLY INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,334.61 EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 180.00 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,603.80 EMPLOYER EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 770.00 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.95 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,557.80 EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 5,709.46 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO LAND 390.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.99 FOCUS 10000 SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 15.00 G I T A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 85.00 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,762.10 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GENERAL SPORTS CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.00 GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 292.88 GREEN TREE VENDOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL 751.89 86 SERVICES COR SERVICES GROVES ACADEMY CLOTHING - tax exempt 20.00 HABERMAN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 1,255.62 HACH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.96 HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 450.00 HCMC WORKERS COMPENSATION INS 90.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 7,426.64 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 780.00 HOLMBECK, GREGORY D OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 263.63 HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 373.10 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 343.21 HUIRAS, SHIRLEY OFFICE SUPPLIES 269.46 I A A I SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 130.00 IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 71.60 J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 0.55 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 114.65 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN NOTES PAYABLE 1,994.31 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 435.15 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 162.11 KRECH, BARBARA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 133.61 LAKE FOREST ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 575.10 LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 75.49 LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN PRINTING & PUBLISHING 30.99 M G F O A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 125.00 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 GENERAL SUPPLIES 597.36 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 789.00 MC CASHIN, BRENDAN D MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 66.65 MENARDS SMALL TOOLS 69.25 MERRILL/ALTERNATIVES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,485.38 METROCALL TELEPHONE 225.71 MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.17 MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC 129.00 87 HOOLS MINN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 5.00 MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 9,294.41 MN COMM OF TRANSPORTATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 100.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 33.00 MONSON, DANIEL R OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 288.75 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (0.33) NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 773.46 NEFF, CINDY PROGRAMMING 100.00 NFPA JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHI PS 115.00 NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.21 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 26,392.53 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 52.52 OLSON, JILL K MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 60.14 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46 PAPER WAREHOUSE- GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.78 PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,069.46 PERSPECTIVES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 141.87 POKORNY COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 475.00 POMMER MFG CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 940.00 PRIME-STRIPE INC SMALL TOOLS 265.00 PRINT SHOP PRINTING & PUBLISHING 485.00 PROEX PHOTO KNOLLWOOD 24001 GENERAL SUPPLIES 117.21 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 86.05 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.06 RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,793.75 ROCKHURST COLLEGE CONT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC 179.00 88 EDUC CT HOOLS RYDER STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 230.00 S & T LAWN SERVICE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.13 SA-AG INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 215.16 SCHWAAB INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 55.20 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.18 SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 78,500.00 SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75 SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 215.13 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (44.86) ST ANDREW CHURCH DAILY TICKETS 28.00 STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 1,037.90 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 38.58 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78) THE GRANT NELSON GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,000.00 TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 339.46 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.86 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 6,889.11 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 20.00 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 671.08 VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 1,400.00 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS (53.06) WANZEK CONSTRUCTION INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,000.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT- BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 168,304.02 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 4,345.09 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 430.79 WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 237.98 WHITE, PERRY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SC HOOLS 416.00 WILD MOUNTAIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 720.00 WISCONSIN DETENTION SYSTEMS IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 289.50 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 38.36 89 ZIP SORT GENERAL SUPPLIES 722.84 400,941.23 August 12, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 2,468.19 2,468.19 August 12,1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 798.68 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY BOND INTEREST 336,714.42 HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 173,849.36 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,416.53 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00 NORTH METRO LANDSCAPING INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,374.50 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,954.00 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 113,362.91 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 43,827.62 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,863.35 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,137.50 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,735.46 VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 94,243.71 801,372.02