HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/09/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 7, 1999
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of August 16, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. Study Session meeting of August 9, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
c. Study Session meeting of August 23, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
5. Approval of agenda
a. Consent agenda
Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
b. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
*c. Resolutions and Ordinances
Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
2
6. Public Hearing
6a. Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and the Economic
Development Authority President and Commissioners
Amendments to Ordinance No. 1666-85 and Resolution 88-169 to increase the
salaries of the Mayor from $7200 to $9200 and Councilmembers from $4800 to
$6000 and to increase the annual salaries of the Economic Development Authority
President from $3600 to $4800 and Commissioners from $2400 to $3600.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to waive the first
reading of the ordinance and set second reading for September
21, 1999.
6b. Sale of City land located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South.
The City staff proposes to sell a 40 foot lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South
to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. for $13,000.
Recommended
Action:
Approve the first reading of the ordinance to sell the property,set
the second reading for September 13,1999 and authorize
summary publication.
6c. CASE NO. 99-12-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Sections 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5-3,5-
4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 of Zoning Ordinance
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading
of Ordinance and set second reading for September 21, 1999.
6d. Public hearing and First Reading of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to
allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions in the C-2, General
Commercial District
Case No. 99-13-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to postpone indefinitely the public hearing and First
Reading of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
6e. City Land Sale at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
This report considers the adoption of an ordinance which authorizes the sale of City
property to the Economic Development Authority to facilitate the development of
3
the site located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an
ordinance authorizing the sale of City owned property located at
the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue to the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and set second
reading for September 21, 1999.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. 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 adopt a resolution approving Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary and final
plat with conditions outlined in the resolution
• Motion to adopt Second Reading of an ordinance to vacate
utility easements and trail easement.
8b. Resolution Approving the Preliminary Property Tax Levy and Budget for the
2000 Fiscal Year and Establishing the Dates and Times for the Public Hearing
Resolution approving the preliminary property tax levy and budget is required by
Truth in Taxation legislation. Information contained in the resolution will be used
in the individual tax notices prepared by the County in advance of the hearing dates.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution which establishes the
preliminary tax levy and budget for 2000 and sets the
hearing dates and times.
8c. Resolution authorizing a levy certification tax rate increase for the 1999
tax levy, collectible in 2000
This report considers a tax rate increase for the 1999 levy that will result in an
increase over the base line tax rate.
Recommended
Acton:
Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing a Levy
Certification Tax Rate Increase for the 1999 Tax Levy,
4
collectible in 2000.
8d.* Traffic Study No. 544: Westwood Lutheran Church Parking Restrictions on
Cedar Lake Road at its Westerly Driveway Exit.
This report considers a request from Westwood Lutheran Church to restrict parking
30 feet on the east and west sides of it’s westerly parking lot exit on Cedar Lake
Road.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the change in
parking restrictions on Cedar Lake Road to no parking within 30
feet on the east and west sides of Westwood Lutheran Church’s
westerly parking lot exit.
8e.* Traffic Study No. 545: Property/Business Owner Request to Eliminate
Parking Restrictions in Front of 4015 Yosemite Avenue South.
This report considers a request from the property owner at 4015 Yosemite Avenue
south to remove the existing parking restrictions.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution
No. 84-110 and authorizing the elimination of parking
restrictions in front of 4015 Yosemite Avenue South.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of February
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*b. Human Rights Commission Minutes of June
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*c. Housing Authority Minutes of July 14, 19999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*d. Planning Commission Minutes of August 4, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*e. Planning Commission Minutes of August 18, 1999
5
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*f. Vendor Claim Report
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) - None
11. New Business
11a. Confirmation of the Appointment of Jean McGann to the position of
Finance Director
This action confirms the appointment by the City Manager of Jean McGann to
the position of Finance Director
Recommended
Action:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Jean McGann to the
position of Finance Director effective October 11, 1999.
11b. Hutchinson Spur Trail Update
This report updates the Council on the project status and upcoming issues.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize deposit with the Hennepin County court
$61,825.00 in the Smith condemnation, authorize execution
of lease agreement with the Burlington Northern Railroad
and authorize execution of agreement with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District for wetland replacement.
11c.* Housing Rehabilitation Fund – Discount Loan Program
The Discount Loan Program is designed to encourage preservation of existing
single family owner occupied housing. The Discount Loan Program will enhance
existing MHFA home improvement loan programs by “buying down” the interest
rate from 8% to 6% for eligible SLP residents.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve $80,000 allocation in Housing Rehabilitation
Fund monies to fund the Discount Loan Program and authorize
the Housing Authority Board to oversee administration of the
Program.
11d.* Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire
suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 3565 Wooddale
6
Avenue South.
Recommended
Action
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and
special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 3565
Wooddale Avenue South and directing the Mayor and City
Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the
property owner.
11e.* Bid Tabulation: Park Commons Demolition/Site Restoration – City
Project No. 98-14
This report considers awarding a contract for the Park Commons
demolition/site restoration to Kevitt Excavating, Inc.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Kevitt Excavating, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for the Park Commons demolition/site
restoration and to authorize execution of a contract with the
firm in the amount of $172,891.00.
11f.* Bid Tabulation: City-Wide Random Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk
Repair Work – City Project No. 99-04
This report considers awarding a contract for City-wide random concrete
curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Standard Sidewalk, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $70,381.00.
11g.* Bid Tabulation: Flood Problem Area 20A – Grading, Base, Storm Sewer,
Curb and Gutter, and Bituminous Paving – City Project No. 99-06
This report considers awarding a contract for street, curb and gutter and storm
sewer work to correct flooding problems in area 20A, located at W. 41st Street and
Wooddale Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $90,661.75.
11h.* Award Contract for E9-1-1/Radio System Upgrade
This report summarizes the improvements necessary to equip the City’s Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for Year 2000 readiness and system integrity, and
extend the life of the system.
7
Recommended
Action:
Motion to award contract for E9-1-1/Radio System Upgrade to
the sole bidder, Capitol Communications, for the amount of
$136,897.15.
11i.* Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)
As a recipient of a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant award, the St.
Louis Park Police Department is requesting a disbursement of $16,818.00 in grant
funds from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve grant fund award.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments
Final-
Scandy concrete, Inc.
Random C & G, & Sidewalk Repair
Contract No. 47-99
$11,553.24
Action: By consent adopt resolutions.
Partial
Valley Paving
Watermain replacement, pavement milling, curb & gutter
Contract No. 19-99
$30,317.19
Action: By consent approve and authorize payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
8
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 16, 1999
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Presentations
a. Junior Naturalists
Doug Langfelds, Recreation Services Manager briefly explained the programs at the Westwood
Nature Center and commended Mary Adams, Naturalist and Mark Oestreich, Senior Naturalist
Program Coordinator who supported the program. He introduced Carrie Hasselrud, Junior
Naturalist Coordinator who presented certificates of appreciation to the Junior Naturalists for
their volunteer service hours of over 1,200 hours to the community.
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 Manger (Ms. Jeremiah); Mr. Moore
(Engineering Superintendent); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of August 2, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented.
4b. Study Session Meeting of June 14, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented.
4c. Study Session Meeting of June 28, 1999
With the changes as outlined by Councilmember Sanger, the minutes were approved as
presented.
9
Page 20, Paragraph 3, change “industrial” to “hotel”. Page 23, Item 4, Paragraph 1, change
Councilmember Sanger’s comment to “would like to see the entire portion of the Hennepin
regional trail system named after Gloria Segal”.
4d. Study Session Meeting of July 12, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the
agenda with following changes recommended by the City Manager.
Addition of fourth motion under Item 8b for Council to make similar decision as the EDA.
Addition of Item 8g
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
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
Resolution #99-93
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented the staff report and indicated that staff and the
Planning Commission recommend approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff
report.
10
Councilmember Nelson asked if there had been any negative feedback from the neighborhood or
affected property owners.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that staff had not received any negative feedback.
Councilmember Sanger questioned whether the St. Lukes addition would result in any decline in
the property value.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that churches were typical uses in single family zones and they were
usually good neighbors and didn’t believe that the St. Lukes Addition would result in any decline
in the property.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a
resolution approving preliminary and final plat for St. Lukes Addition subject to conditions in the
resolution. The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Park Commons Phase I Project
Resolutions # 99-94, 99-95, 99-96
Councilmember Latz noted that the northern edge of the map which identified the proposed tax
increment boundary bisected a lot and questioned its implication.
Mr. Harmening, Planning Coordinator stated that the drawing was preliminary and would be
tweaked to correct deficiencies and expected that the final map would include that lot entirely
within the tax increment district.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer, to approve a
Resolution requesting the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park call for a public hearing on
the establishment of the Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment Financing District (a
redevelopment district). The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer, to approve a
Resolution designating Certain Buildings as Structurally Substandard with Redevelopment
Project No. 1. The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer, to approve a
Resolution Declaring the official intent of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the Authority. The
motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer, to authorize the
President and Executive Director to enter into the amended and restated preliminary development
agreement with AvalonBay Communities Inc. relating to Phase I of Park Commons. The motion
passed 7-0.
11
8c. City Engineer’s Report: Storm Water Flood Area No. 20A Improvements at
Wooddale Avenue and W. 42 1/2 Street - Project No. 99-06
Resolution #99-97
Carleton Moore, Engineering Superintendent presented a staff report.
Councilmember Nelson asked what the affect of lowering the curb and sidewalk would be.
Mr. Moore indicated that it would create a deeper channel which would provide a greater
capacity to handle storm water and meet the criteria for the storm design standard that had been
proposed. He noted that this did not take care of the damage and other issues on the private
property which will be considered at a later date.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt the
resolution accepting the report, establishing Project No. 99-06, ordering Project No. 99-06,
approving plans and specifications, and authorizing receipt of bids. The motion passed 7-0.
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
Resolution #99-98
By consent, Council adopted 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 #99-99
By consent, Council adopted a 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
By consent, Council moved to continue consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment until
September 7, 1999. By consent, Council moved to continue consideration of preliminary and
final plat of Silvercrest Addition until September 7, 1999. By consent, Council moved to
continue Second Reading of vacation request until September 7, 1999.
12
8g. Request for Reconveyance of Tax Forfeited Land Related to Property at
Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
Resolution #99-100
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development presented a staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve a
Resolution Authorizing the Reconveyance of certain Tax-Forfeited Property and Requesting a
Resale. The motion passed 7-0.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Sidewalks and Trails Report
Mayor Jacobs noted that there were several persons present at the meeting who were interested
the Sidewalk and Trails proposal, but stated that public input would not be taken at the meeting
because the Council was simply receiving the report and directing staff to develop several
alternatives based upon the public input that has been received to date. He stated that there would
be additional opportunities for public comment prior to any formalized action on the proposal.
Mr. Rardin indicated that the notification procedure for subsequent meetings was through the
Sun Sailor, Park Perspective, cable TV and a mailing list created through the public hearing
process. Mr. Rardin noted that the proposal included several controversial areas and asked
residents present at meeting who desired to speak to these items to place their name on a mailing
list which would notify them of any upcoming public meetings related to the Sidewalk and Trails
proposal.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to accept the
report for filing. The motion passed 7-0.
b. Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 1999
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 25, 1999
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 21, 1999
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
e. Human Rights Commission Minutes of May 19, 1999
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
13
f. Vendor Claims Report
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
10. Unfinished Business - None
11. New Business - None
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments
Final - None Partial - None
14. Communications - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:20 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
14
Item # 4b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 9, 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 Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of
Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick), City Planner (Ms. Erickson),
and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
1. Transit Study
Brian Lamb described the modified grid. He stated that it served the same function as the
“circulator” which had been previously discussed by Council. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if
the circulator would also connect to downtown. Mr. Lamb said that it would.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her concern that all areas of St. Louis Park are not connected
to the circulator. Jim Lasher stated that it could not reach a quarter mile distance in all areas. He
talked briefly about estimated ridership, route productivity (passenger/revenue an hour), and
estimated overall productivity.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the figure is based on current ridership or the estimated in the
future. Mr. Lasher stated that it was based on estimated future ridership.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the criteria are for that figure. Mr. Lasher responded that the
criteria was parking, the population and employment density, and the percent of population under
eighteen and over sixty-five. He stated that to determine the level of service, they needed to find
out the productivity and the need for transit services.
Discussion moved on to how more frequent connections have a higher cost. It was stated that the
public hearing process could go smoothly for some of the routes but may not for some of the
others.
Councilmember Santa felt that Route 17 is highly used and that reducing the frequency that it
runs would cause problems. Mr. Lasher explained several alternatives.
Councilmember Sanger felt there should not be transfers and Councilmember Brimeyer
disagreed. He stated that transfers need to happen if the grid system is set up.
15
Councilmember Latz felt that council should consider what good for what people at what cost.
This plan offered more options and equal speed and he felt that some transfers would be
acceptable.
Councilmember Sanger believed that kids should be able to get to the Rec Center after school
from any point in the city with no transfers. She felt that people should not be expected to
arrange their schedules around bus stops and hours.
Councilmember Latz stated that people do learn to plan and felt the plan as presented was
reasonable..
Mayor Jacobs believed this is a better system and would not be willing to look at additional cost
for dial-a-ride. He felt this is more convenient for more people. He stated that not having to
look for parking is just one of the ways that makes the transit way more convenient.
Councilmember Santa said she sees enhanced connections through transit centers. She also
pointed out that when transfers are missed, it can be problematic.
Mr. Lasher stated that the transit way would increase service reliability.
Councilmember Brimeyer reminded the group that two goals were brought up in the beginning of
this study. The first was to get people to places of employment and other institutions. He stated
that this could be achieved through the grid system. The second was to efficiently get people to
transfer points. He pointed out the north and south connector system could accomplish this. He
asked how users can be reassured that when using the transit system, the ride will be completed
in a reasonable amount of time and they can transfer to their destination points.
Mr. Meyer asked if the plan provides adequate time for transfers. Mr. Lasher replied that all
points allow some time for transfers but all major routes offer multiple options.
Mr. Lamb spoke about funding strategies. He stated that they are still meeting with the Cities of
Hopkins and Minnetonka. He felt that a draft service plan would be available in mid-September,
with a final plan coming October 1. He stated that he would like approval from the Council to go
to the public. He stated that his goal was to get community input and have a public hearing by
the end of the year.
Mr. Lamb also indicated that the structure would be in place in 2000. He said that “right-size
vehicles” would be used.
Mr. Lamb asked Council if money should be sought from the grant fund to reduce the amount of
carbon dioxide emissions or if a letter should be submitted to the Legislature asking for
assistance.
Mr. Meyer inquired about the funding requests and what the process would be after the grant
application and request to the Legislature. He stated that he would prefer to move towards a
greater frequency in routes if the money is available now.
16
Councilmember Latz felt that they should move forward now.
Councilmember Brimeyer explained transit choice versus transit dependent.
Mr. Lamb stated that transit dependent individuals may patronize more St. Louis Park businesses
if transit connections change.
Mr. Meyer questioned the route reliability of the plan. He asked if the structure would be
changed so often that it would loose its reliability. Mr. Lamb replied that the community makes
the decision on the route, not Metro Transit. Met Council Chair Mr. Mondale will be submitting
a funding proposal for the transit way to be included in a bonding request to the Governor.
2. Vacant Lot at 2712 Vernon Ave S
Mr. Stepnick gave the history of the lot. Discussion revolved around the price of the lot and the
final consensus was to move forward with the sale.
3. Sidewalks and Trails
Mr. Rardin presented the Council with a large book of comments received on the trails and
sidewalks plan.
Councilmember Latz said that as with many issues that come before council, the citizens against
the plan were very vocal, but those in support of the plan tended to be less visible. He did not
feel that the comments presented were actually indicative of what the true thoughts of the
community were.
Councilmember Sanger reviewed the outcome of a meeting held with some Fern Hill residents
the week before.
Mayor Jacobs felt comments received indicated distinct areas of the plan that should be reviewed
and possibly modified.
Mr. Meyer stated that pockets of sentiment were specific to certain areas of town. He also said
there was not an overwhelming opposition from residents as a whole and changes should be
made as specific problems occurred. He suggested creating an amended concept. Mayor Jacobs
agreed.
Councilmember Young inquired about different areas of the Phasing plan.
Mr. Meyer stated that Phase I includes trails and City sidewalks. It would not include any
assessments. Phase II discussion was limited so far but it would happen as Phase I was
underway.
Councilmember Young stated that reportedly the public had been told the City would maintain
the trails. He said he could not find any Council decision to that effect. Mayor Jacobs replied
that the plan is in the proposal phase and no Council action has been taken yet.
17
Councilmember Brimeyer recalled that council had discussed maintenance of “city” trails and
sidewalks. He felt that adopting a trail and sidewalk plan is a tough decision and Council will
need to decide if they should go forward with Phase I as originally planned.
Councilmember Sanger felt that neighborhoods should be treated as individuals, sidewalks
should be maintained, and the next steps should be identified. She did not want to raise public
expectations, and inquired on how they were to specify additional steps with cost.
Mr. Meyer replied that the structure should be looked at first and then the specific issues. He
suggested that action should not be taken by Council during the next meeting. He also suggested
that the report be accepted by council and that council should give staff direction to continue
with the study incorporating changes deemed appropriate based on public comments already
received.
Councilmember Nelson said he would like more neighborhood meetings before the master plan
would be adopted.
It was suggested that the following areas be added to the plan: 28th St. west of Hwy. 100, behind
the bank on 40th St., a trail from twin lake behind Benilde, 26th St. to France, 16th St. to
Hampshire Ave., 16th St. between Hwy. 169 and Ford Rd., and Shelard would also like a
sidewalk.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that sidewalks and trails needed the most should be
completed first, and the others can be incorporated into the following Phases.
Councilmember Young stated that in the original plan the sidewalk widths were too large and
suggested that some of them should be narrowed down.
Mr. Rardin suggested being cautious, that capital is a small amount and the on-going costs are
what will add up.
4. Gambling
Councilmember Nelson stated that he did not favor gambling and did not want the city to allow
gambling at all.
Councilmember Young stated that if the city continues to allow gambling, the money should be
left in the local area.
Councilmember Latz agreed with the staff recommendations that January 1, 2000 is a reasonable
time for the ordinance change to go into effect.
Councilmember Brimeyer made several points on the administrative costs, the trade area, and
minimizing the opportunity for abuse.
18
The question was raised if the ordinance would cause any legislative problems. Councilmember
Sanger asked to review the state reporting forms. It was then discussed that more information
should be obtained from the attorney regarding financial reporting requirements.
5. Parking on Louisiana Ave, South of Cedar Lake Road
Council discussed limiting the parking to off-street only. Councilmember Nelson stated that
everyone felt the parking situation is a problem that needs to be corrected.
Staff was directed to present the issue with more information at a future study session.
6. Communications
On the topic of undergrounding utilities, Councilmember Young felt that with new developments
the utilities should be underground. However, he felt that utility lines are still a safety issue.
Mayor Jacobs said that digging is also dangerous and there are dangers if utility lines are under or
above ground. He stated that he did not want to retroactively underground utility lines. It was
mentioned that the Zoning Ordinance will be looked at to see what needs to be undergrounded to
comply with the code.
The Community Development department along with the Planning Commission will be holding a
seminar on planning issues in the near future.
Mr. Meyer stated that he will be on a Task Force to study the 35W corridor.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
19
Item # 4c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 23, 1999
The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Susan Santa, Robert Young, Chris Nelson, Ron
Latz, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); Interim Finance Director (Mr. Brooks);
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker); and
City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
1. Project for Pride in Living Proposal for Louisiana Court
Staff met with council to discuss the progress make in planning a renovation/rehabilitation
project at Louisiana Court apartments, including proposed financing and acquisition issues. Barb
McCormick, Director of Housing and Development for Project for Pride in Living (PPL) and
Lisa Kugler, a development consultant working with PPL were in attendance at the meeting.
Also in attendance was Mark Ruff, of Ehlers and Associates.
Mr. Harmening gave a brief background of the issue to be discussed and informed Council of the
city’s prominent role as lender if the project were to move forward as presented.
Ms. McCormick stated that as the social, aesthetic and maintenance problems were discussed, it
became apparent that the entire Louisiana Court development be considered for the program.
She stated that 11 of the 16 buildings would be owned by one property owner which would
reduce problems with management of buildings currently with several owners.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the city’s commitment was this large with the original plan
and also asked for a pro forma on the project. Mr. Harmening stated that it was not, but that he
agreed there were several factors pointing to the logic of expanding the project to include all of
the buildings. He also said that more detailed financial information would be presented at a later
time.
Councilmembers expressed concern and asked questions regarding the project’s financial
aspects. Mr. Ruff explained options for funding, how bonding for the project would be
accomplished, pay back time on the bonds and what protections were in place for the city should
the manager of the project experience financial difficulty in the future.
Councilmember Santa asked what funding was available for social programming. Ms.
McCormick explained that social programs were funded separately and not provided directly by
20
PPL. PPL would utilize existing social service agencies to meet the needs of residents at
Louisiana Courts.
Mr. Harmening explained that by moving forward, the city would reap many benefits, including:
Resolution of management issues; improved buildings and grounds, both structurally and
aesthetically; the retention of affordable housing in the neighborhood; and felt that the project
would serve as a catalyst for dealing with social service issues.
Councilmember Nelson pointed out that statistically, crime was already down in the
neighborhood. He did feel that if the cost and risk are negligible to the city, then the city should
proceed with the plan.
Councilmember Young asked if the city could maximize the number of Holman Units so that the
City’s portion of contribution to the project could be reduced. Ms. Kugler explained that the city
must contribute 50% to qualify for the bond sale. She also explained that proceeds from
Holman Units could not be used to service the debt.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that the city establish a fund to do similar kinds of projects
in other areas of the city. He asked to see more specific financial details at a future meeting.
Councilmember Latz felt that it would be better to do one project at a time and keep costs down
as much as possible. He stated that rehabilitation at this location would positively affect
surrounding properties.
Mr. Harmening asked for council direction as to whether to move forward. If council wished to
continue, staff would come back with additional financial information.
Councilmember Young felt that the city should move forward and that this project was much
more agreeable to him than condemnation of run down properties.
Ms. Schnitker informed Council that she would bring to them a resolution of support for PPL to
forward to the Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Grant fund application.
2. Philosophy of Code Enforcement
Mr. Hoffman met with council to discuss various methods and effects of performing city code
inspections, leading to development of a unified policy for implementation by the Inspections
Department.
Past council direction had left staff confused and had led to selective and inconsistent
enforcement of city codes. Mr. Hoffman pointed out that enforcement by complaint tends to
frustrate community members. He suggested that the city adopt a more systematic approach
which would include three components: education; programs to assist residents and businesses;
and then enforcement. He stated that the city’s goal should be to achieve compliance and that by
21
providing education and guidance to residents and businesses, the city could more easily achieve
that goal.
Mayor Jacobs, Councilmember Nelson, Councilmember Brimeyer and Councilmember Santa all
agreed that a systematic and consistent approach would be beneficial to the city.
Councilmember Young also agreed and approved of taking a pro-active stance. He also wanted
staff to be aggressive with known violators. He suggested that council take an active role in
informing staff when violations occur.
Councilmember Santa suggested that Inspections staff work with neighborhoods to education
residents about city codes and what citizens can do to maintain the appearance and quality of our
community.
Mr. Hoffman explained that the City Attorney was currently working with the Hennepin Court
system to close loopholes, making it easier for the city to enforce their ordinances and achieve
compliance.
Councilmember Latz was concerned that the city not appear too aggressive in prosecuting
violators and also agreed that a systematic and consistent approach which included an education
component was best when dealing with the public.
Mr. Hoffman informed council that he would be developing a set of parameters to bring back to a
future council meeting and following that would prepare a policy document with clear and
specific guidelines for enforcement of the city’s codes.
3. Proposed 2000 Budget
Mr. Pires and Mr. Brooks presented the revised 1999 and proposed 2000 budgets for council
consideration and invited them to ask questions.
Council questions focused on inclusion in the budget for Y2K compliance, a proposed Texa
Tonka study, the Employee benefit fund, equipment replacement fund, funding for the arts,
amphitheater funding, and park development at Oak Park Village.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked for clarification on several areas including specific expenditures
and departmental policy direction.
5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
22
23
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of September 7, 1999
6a. Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and the Economic
Development Authority President and Commissioners
Amendments to Ordinance No. 1666-85 and Resolution 88-169 to increase the
salaries of the Mayor from $7200 to $9200 and Councilmembers from $4800 to
$6000 and to increase the annual salaries of the Economic Development Authority
President from $3600 to $4800 and Commissioners from $2400 to $3600.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to waive the first
reading of the ordinance and set second reading for September
21, 1999.
Background
Our City Charter states that City Council compensation is set by ordinance and becomes effective
on December 1st following the municipal election. City Council compensation was last set on
November 4, 1985. Compensation for the Economic Development Authority is set by resolution
and was last done so on November 7, 1985. Currently, the salaries of the Mayor and
Councilmembers are $7200 and $4800, respectfully. An additional $2400 is paid to
Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority with the President receiving $3600.
Findings
A survey was conducted of the 33 cities in the metropolitan area with populations over 20,000.
Please see attachment. The survey shows council salaries and also indicates whether or not
additional compensation is given for members of the Economic Development Authority or the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Of the 33 cities listed, five cities, not including St.
Louis Park, provide additional compensation for the Economic Development Authority. The
average compensation provided by these five cities is $30 per meeting.
According to provisions on compensation in the City Charter, a public hearing and an ordinance
are required every time Council pay is amended. Staff recommends setting up a procedure which
ensures Council will receive salary increases in accordance with Charter and Ordinance. This
regular review of Council salaries could be done in the fall of each municipal election year and
would allow for the adjustment in Council salaries to be in amounts similar to other City
employees. The Council would proceed with a public hearing for an ordinance amending their
salaries.
Currently, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Commissioners are paid $200 per
month, $100 per meeting, two meetings per month with the President receiving $300 per month,
$150 per meeting, two meetings per month. However, in the Resolution adopted in 1988, pay
was established at $100 per meeting for Commissioners and $150 per meeting for the President
24
with the compensation not to exceed $100 per month for commissioners and $150 per month for
the President.
At the August 9, 1999 Council study session, Council discussed increasing the salaries of the
Mayor by $2000 and Councilmembers by $1200. This would allow for an approximate 1.7%
annualized increase from the last pay raise on November 4, 1985 to the present date. In
comparison to City staff, the increase of 1.7% falls below the 3% increase given to staff in 1999.
Furthermore, Council discussed amending the resolution establishing compensation of the EDA
President and Commissioners to increase compensation by a flat rate of $1200 retroactive to
November 7, 1988. The resolution would increase the annual salary of the Commissioners from
$2400 to $3600 and the President from $3600 to $4800.
The salary increases reflect the increase in responsibilities of the Mayor over the past 12 years
and an adjustment in the cost of living.
Recommendation
Recommended action for the meeting of September 7th is to waive the first reading of the
ordinance setting council salaries and set second reading for September 21, 1999.
Staff also recommends that Council take the following actions at it’s September 21st meeting:
A. Adopt the Ordinance increasing the annual salary of the Mayor from $7200 to $9200 and
Councilmembers from $4800 to $6000 effective January 1, 2000.
B. Adopt the Resolution setting the compensation of the Economic Development Authority
President at an annual salary of $3600 and Commissioners at an annual salary of $2400
effective November 7, 1985 through December 31, 1999.
C. Adopt the Resolution setting compensation of the Economic Development Authority
President at an annual salary of $4800 and Commissioners at an annual salary of $3600
effective January 1, 2000.
D. Review and adjust Council salaries in the fall of each municipal election year in amounts
similar to other City employees.
Prepared by: Durell Vieau
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments: Salary Survey
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Resolution (for September 21st)
25
Salary Survey, Council Members
City Current
Salary
Salary
Approved for
2000
EDA HRA Other Ordinance or
Resolution
Andover 6650 no no no no ordinance
Apple Valley 6000 no no no no ordinance
Blaine 7704 no no no no ordinance
Bloomington 10000 no no no no ordinance
Brooklyn Center 6350 no no no no ordinance
Brooklyn Park 9636 9924 no no no ordinance
Burnsville 6840 7020 no no no ordinance
Champlin 5836 no 25/mo. no no ordinance
Coon Rapids 9000 no no no no ordinance
Cottage Grove 6000 no no no no resolution
Crystal 6242 6369 no no no ordinance
Eagan 6880 no no no mileage ordinance
Eden Prairie 6000 no no no no ordinance
Edina 5100 no no no no ordinance
Fridley 6100 no no no no ordinance
Golden Valley 7217 7668 50/mtg no no resolution
Hopkins 4600 no no no no ordinance
Inver Grove
Heights
6000 no no no no ordinance
Lakeville 8664 no no 25/mtg no ordinance
Maple Grove 7600 8100 no no no ordinance
Maplewood 8597 no no no no ordinance
Minnetonka 7200 no no no no ordinance
New Brighton 6000 no no no no ordinance
New Hope 6895 7120 25/mtg 25/mtg no ordinance
Oakdale 5820 no no no no ordinance
Plymouth 6300 no no no no ordinance
Richfield 6025 no no no no ordinance
Roseville 6000 no no no no ordinance
St. Louis Park 4800 2400 no no ordinance
Shoreview 5736 no no no no ordinance
South St. Paul 6600 no no no no ordinance
White Bear Lake 4800 no no no no ordinance
Woodbury 5400 no no no no ordinance
Jul-99
26
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALARIES
FOR COUNCILMEMBERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. The annual salary of the Mayor shall be $9000, and the annual salary of
each Councilmember shall be $6000, until changed by ordinance as provided in Section 2.07 of
the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2000.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Manager City Attorney
27
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE COMPENSATION PAID TO
COMMISSIONERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, The Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota was
officially established on September 19, 1988 by Resolution 88-134; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority holds its regular meetings the first
and third Monday of each month; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section a 469.095,
commissioners, including the president shall be compensated in an amount to be determined by
the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to
set the compensation of the Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority at an
annual rate of $2400 and the President at an annual rate of $3600 effective November 7, 1985
through December 31, 1999. .
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to
set the compensation of the Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority at an
annual rate of $3600 and the President at an annual rate of $5400 effective January 1, 2000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 21, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of September 7, 1999
6b. Sale of City land located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South.
The City staff proposes to sell a 40 foot lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South
to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. for $13,000.
Recommended
Action:
Approve the first reading of the ordinance to sell the property,set
the second reading for September 21,1999 and authorize
summary publication.
Background:
Staff would like to sell a vacant, nontaxable 40 ft. lot (R1 zoned) located at 2712 Vernon Avenue
South. The lot is owned by the City and it would be authorized for sale on Tuesday, September 7,
1999 for $13,000 to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc.
The City of St Louis Park acquired a 40 ft. x 121 ft lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South on
December 30, 1988 from the Salvation Army.
The cost of the lot was: $12,329.00
The lot had been deeded to the Salvation Army from Robert C. Nelson and Ardith A. Nelson on
December 31, 1985. Originally Ester Marie Nelson owned both lots and her estate distributed
one lot to her daughter, Phyllis A. Strand and one lot to her son, Robert C. Nelson. Title to these
lots transferred to the heirs on November 15, 1967. In 1982 a variance was denied to build a
single family residence on the 40 foot lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South. The applicant
for the Variance was James H. Cox who had purchased the lot from Mr. Nelson.
City records since 1983 indicate that the grass on the City lot has been cut each year and that the
lot at 2708 Vernon Avenue South has been maintained since 1993. It is estimated it costs the City
$300 per year to maintain the lots (10 mowings per year).
In order to determine a fair price to sell the City’s lot at 2712 Vernon Avenue South an appraisal
was ordered and the combined value of the two lots was appraised at $25,000. The valuation was
reduced $15,000 for leveling and grading the site. Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. has a
signed Purchase Agreement with Phyllis A. Strand for $24,000. Another Purchase Agreement for
$13,000 for the vacant lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South has been delivered to the City.
The sale of the lot was approved at the September 1, 1999 Planning Commission hearing and
residents within 350 feet of the City lot have been notified about the dates of the Planning
Commission hearing and the City Council hearing.
29
It is recommended that the City sell the lot located at 2712 Vernon Avenue South for $13,000 to
Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc. The transaction is recommended for the following
reasons:
1.) The City will recoup most of the original purchase costs ( $12,329).
2.) The City will not have to maintain the lots.
3.) The combined lot will allow construction of a single family residence.
4.) A long-standing dispute with the City will be ended.
Attachments: Ordinance, neighborhood map, purchase agreement.
Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
30
ORDINANCE NO. __________
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2712 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS
PARK, MN. TO CARPENTER HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR A PRICE OF
$13,000.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
WHEREAS, Section 11.02 of the City Charter states
that no real property of the City be sold or disposed of except by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City has acquired title to the real property located at 2712 Vernon
Avenue and legally described as:
Lot 4, Block 2, Birch Woods Addition.
Pursuant to the signed Purchase Agreement attached hereto, as Exhibit “A” from Carpenter
Homes and Construction, Inc., 2712 Vernon Avenue South will be transferred to Carpenter
Homes and Construction, Inc. and contingent upon the transfer of ownership to Carpenter Homes
and Construction, Inc., of the property located at 2708 Vernon Avenue South, St. Louis Park,
Mn., and
WHEREAS, the terms of the proposed purchase and subsequent sale of the Subject
Property are fair and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, maintaining ownership of the Subject Property would not serve the public
interest: and
WHEREAS, the proposed sale of the Subject
Property has no relation to the City’s Comprehensive Plan:
31
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that:
1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance.
2. The City staff is hereby authorized to sell the vacant lot located at
2712 Vernon Avenue South to Carpenter Homes and Construction, Inc., for
$13,000.
This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after publication.
ADOPTED this 21st day of September 1999, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park.
Attest:
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Manager City Attorney
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6c
Meeting of September 7, 1999
6c. CASE NO. 99-12-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Sections 14:1-1,1-2,2-5, 3-1,4-1,4-3,4-4, 5-3,5-
4,5-5,5-6,5-7,6-1,6-5,6-6,6-7,8-2,8-3, and 8-4 of Zoning Ordinance
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading
of Ordinance and set second reading for September 21, 1999.
BACKGROUND:
On June 2, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated several unrelated clusters of Zoning
Ordinance amendments to address various identified issues:
• The Community Development Department and Department of Inspections met with the City
Council at a Study Session on July 26, 1999, about various Zoning Ordinance provisions
regulating accessory buildings in residential districts. The City Council has given direction to
make amendments relative to this issue.
• On May 17, 1999, the City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 in response to
various statute amendments requiring metropolitan municipalities to update their plans.
Several amendments are required to bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and to give the Comprehensive Plan the desired standing for making
development decisions.
• A section of the Zoning Ordinance was inadvertently deleted during the adoption of
amendments regulating commercial and recreational vehicles.
• The Zoning Ordinance directs various applications and powers of interpretation to various
employee positions. Some of these positions and department responsibilities have changed.
• The changing role of the Planning Commission in relation to variances and public hearings.
• The entire City Code is being recodified. This process has identified areas where particular
elements or land uses are being regulated by more than one section of the Municipal Code.
• There are several other housekeeping amendments which have been identified while applying
the Ordinance to various situations.
33
Staff has reviewed and developed zoning amendments which were reviewed by the Planning
Commission in several phases throughout this summer, with the final group of amendments
reviewed on September 1, 1999. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of all of
the following amendments.
The City Council also reviewed a number of the following amendments during a Study Session
on July 26, 1999. Language modifications were incorporated as a result of that discussion.
The deletions to the ordinance language show as strikeouts, the additions are underlined.
ANALYSIS
I. BUILDING HEIGHT
According to the Zoning Ordinance, building height is considered significant from the front or
curb side of the building. However, issues have been raised by residents and the City Council
that relate to the height and scale of accessory buildings along neighboring property lines.
Several amendments are proposed relating to building height, including a change to simplify the
ability of staff to calculate building heights from building plans and ensure consistent
administration of the Ordinance. Other changes are proposed to the maximum height standards
of various use districts based upon the proposed new height calculation method which introduce
two height standards depending on roof slope.
Section 14:3-1. Definitions
Building. Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons,
animals or chattel personal property.
Building Height. A distance to be measured vertically from the mean curb level along the
front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that portion of the structure having
frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher, first floor main entrance elevation
to the top of the parapet or rooftop equipment, whichever is higher, of a flat roof; to the
deck line of a mansard roof; to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a
shed roof; to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof; or to the mean
distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof highest point of the structure. First
floor shall be determined as defined by the State Building Code. The highest point may
be located at the top of a wall, parapet, roof or other feature of the structure, whichever
results in the greatest elevation difference from the first floor.
Roof, Low-sloped: Roof slopes to a maximum of a 2:12 (two (2) units of vertical
distance for each twelve (12) units of horizontal distance) pitch.
Roof, High-sloped: Roof slopes exceeding a 2:12 pitch.
34
Section 14:5-4.2.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R1 Use District)
1. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty- (30) feet in height,
whichever is less, except as provided in Section 14:4-8 of this Ordinance, the
following height limitations shall apply:
a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 30
feet.
b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 36 feet.
c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories.
d. Accessory building heights shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5-
4.1.
Section 14:5-4.3.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R2 Use District)
1. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty- (30) feet in height,
whichever is less, except as provided in Section 14:4-8 of this Ordinance, the
following height limitations shall apply:
a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 30
feet.
b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 36 feet.
c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories.
d. Accessory building heights shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5-
4.1.
Section 14:5-4.4.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R3 Use District)
2. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height,
whichever is less, except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this
Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply:
a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 35
feet.
b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 42 feet.
c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories.
d. Accessory building shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5-4.1.
Section 14:5-4.5.G. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (R4 Use District)
3. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height,
whichever is less, except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this
Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply:
35
a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 40
feet.
b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 50 feet.
c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories.
d. Accessory building heights shall comply with provisions of Section 14:5-
4.1.
Section 14:5-5.2.F DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS/DENSITIES (C1 Use District)
4. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height,
whichever is less, except as provided in Section 14:4-8 and Section 14:6-7 of this
Ordinance, the following height limitations shall apply:
a. Buildings with low sloped roofs and other structures shall not exceed 35
feet.
b. Buildings with high sloped roofs shall not exceed 42 feet.
c. Buildings shall not exceed 3 stories.
II. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
There has been considerable activity by homeowners to improve their property in recent years.
Several of these improvements, especially to accessory structures, have caused concern to
neighbors, however. For this reason, current Zoning Ordinance provisions that govern accessory
structures have been reexamined to determine how these balance housing goals (including the
goal to create move-up housing), Vision St. Louis Park goals, individual property owners’ needs
to increase livability, and neighbors’ needs to minimize outside impacts.
Proposed changes reduce allowable heights and modify the setback requirements for accessory
buildings.
Section 14:5-4.1.C General Provisions (Residential performance standards)
7. Accessory structures shall comply with all of the following regulations:
a. No accessory building shall be erected or located within a yard other than the rear yard,
except that a detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage, may be located
within a side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located between
the front building wall and the front lot line. No accessory building except a garage shall
be located between the rear building wall of the principal building and the front lot line.
b. No accessory building erected in the rear yard of a corner lot shall be
located within 15 feet of any property line abutting a street except that in
36
an “R-2” or “R-3” district an accessory building may be located within 9
feet of a property line abutting a street on a lot of record which is at least
40 but less than 60 feet wide.
c. All detached garages and other accessory structures shall be
compatible in design and materials to the principal structure on the parcel.
d. A detached garage located 60 feet or more from the front lot line shall
meet the following locational provisions:
i. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 12 feet in
height and/or 26 feet in width shall be located a minimum of two
(2) feet from any lot lines.
ii. Garages where the building dimensions exceeds 12 feet in height
and/or 26 feet in width shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet
from a lot line abutting an alley and five (5) feet from any other lot
lines.
The minimum setback from all property lines for accessory buildings located within 60
feet of a front lot line shall be three (3) feet. The minimum setback from all property
lines for accessory buildings located more than 60 feet from the front property line shall
be two (2) feet. No accessory building wall which exceeds 26 feet in length may be
located closer than 5 feet from any lot line except a lot line abutting an alley.
e. There is no specific limit to the number of detached garages or other
accessory structures that may be erected on a given lot. However, the total
ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent
(25%) of the area between the rear building wall of the principal structure
and rear lot line. and Additionally, in the “R-1”, “R-2”, or “R-3” districts,
it the total ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed
eight hundred (800) square feet, except for two-family dwelling units in
the “R-3” district, where the total ground floor area of all accessory
buildings shall not exceed either one thousand two hundred (1,200) square
feet or 25% of the area between the principal structure and rear lot line for
a two-family dwelling unit. No single accessory building may exceed
eight hundred (800) square feet of ground floor area.
f. The height of an accessory building measured from the lowest level on the
ground within 5 feet of the foundation, in accordance with Section 14:3-1,
shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet twelve (12) feet for a low-sloped roof and
sixteen (16) feet for a high-sloped roof, except:
37
i. parking ramps whose height is regulated by Section 14:5-4.5 and
14:5-4.6.
g. No accessory building other than a garage shall be located
within three (3) two (2) feet of any lot line abutting lots in an “R” Use
District.
Section 14:5-4.2E ACCESSORY USES (R-1 Use District)
1. A private garages not to exceed 800 square feet or 25% of the rear lot area, whichever is
less.
Section 14:5-4.3.E ACCESSORY USES (R-2 Use District)
1. A private garages not to exceed 800 square feet or 25% of the rear lot area, whichever is
less.
Section 14:5-4.4.E ACCESSORY USES (R-3 Use District)
1. A private garages which does not exceed either 25% of the area between the principal
structure and rear lot line, or 800 square feet if a single family home and 1,200 square feet
if a two-family home.
Section 14:5-4.5.F ACCESSORY USES (R-4 Use District)
1. Private garages and parking spaces.
III. MEASUREMENT FOR SETBACKS
Questions have been raised regarding how building setbacks are measured, especially
where a cantilever is designed as part of the building. The following amendment has
been recommended by the Planning Commission.
Section 14:2-5.E All measured distance expressed in feet shall be to the nearest tenth of a
foot. The measurement of distances when required by this Ordinance shall be done in a
straight line in the plane located at a point one foot above the highest point in the surface
of the ground along the path of measurement, from the closest exterior wall (extended
vertically if a cantilever) of a building containing the use to the property line of the
adjacent street, district, or lot or other boundary line. If the use is not within a building,
the measurement shall be the shortest distance from the location of the use to the property
line of the adjacent street, district, or lot or other boundary line.
38
IV. YARD ENCROACHMENTS
The “yard encroachments” section of the Code was originally written to address the
principal buildings, not accessory buildings. The recommended language change would
differentiate standards as applied to the principal building and for accessory buildings.
The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the following changes.
Section 14:4-3 -
A. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements.
1. Bays not exceeding a depth of two (2) feet or to contain an
area of more than twenty (20) square feet.
2. Chimney, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more
than three (3) feet into a yard; and provided such encroachment is no
closer than four (4) feet from all lot lines.
3.1. Yard lights and the nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in
the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts.
4.2. Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated
signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and
security purposes if these meet the regulations of Section 14:6-3.
5. Terraces and steps which do not extend more than two and one-half (2 ½)
feet above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building,
awnings, and door hoods provided they are a minimum of two (2) feet
from any lot line.
6. Uncovered porches, stoops or decks which do not extend above the height
of the ground floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of
two (2) feet from any side or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot
line.
7.3. Flag poles, bird baths, and other ornamental features detached from the
principal building which are a minimum of four (4) feet from any lot line.
8.4. Railroad feeder tracks which provide access to buildings and structures in
the “C-1”, “C-2”, “O”, “I-P”, and “I-G” Use Districts. No loading or
unloading may be done from railroad cars on any feeder track in any front
yard.
39
9.5. Canopies no more than 12 feet wide are permitted in the “R-4”,
“R-C”, “C-1”, “C-2”, “O”, “I-P”, and “I-G” Use Districts if they are open
at the sides, comply with provisions of Section 14:4-6 and provide 14 feet
of clearance if located over any access roadway or fire lane.
10. On principal residential structures, open covered porches which do not
contain either windows or screens and are a minimum of 5 feet from any
interior lot line, 9 feet from any side yard line abutting a street, 25 feet
from any rear lot line and 20 feet from any front lot line. Porches shall be
open between the floor and the ceiling. All railings shall be open utilizing
posts and spindles.
11.6. Enclosed pedestrian walkways. The walkways must meet the following
standards: The walls of the walkway shall conform with the class I
exterior materials requirements of the Zoning Code. Said walkways may
be no more than 16’ wide and 12’ in height from floor to ceiling. A
clearance of 16’6” is required if the walkway is above a traveled roadway.
The properties connected by the walkways must submit documents which
indicate their agreement to build, the arrangement for maintenance of the
walkway, and under what conditions the walkways might be removed.
The location of any pedestrian walkway shall be approved by the Director
of Public Works and Community Development Director. Approval shall
not be granted for any walkway that does not provide a satisfactory means
to access any utility or public trail lying under or adjacent to the walkway.
B. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements for principal
buildings.
1. Bays not exceeding a depth of two (2) feet or to contain an area of more
than twenty (20) square feet.
2. Chimney, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more
than three (3) feet into a required yard; and provided such encroachment is
no closer than four (4) feet from all lot lines. Building overhangs shall
also comply with the Minnesota State Building Code.
3. Terraces and steps which do not extend more than two and one-half (2 1/2)
feet above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building,
awnings, and door hoods provided they are a minimum of two (2) feet
from any lot line.
40
4. Uncovered porches, stoops or decks which do not extend above the height
of the grounds floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of
two (2) feet from any side or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot
line.
5. Open covered porches that do not contain either windows or screens and
are a minimum of 5 feet from any interior side lot line, 9 feet from any
side yard line abutting a street, 25 feet from any rear lot line and 20 feet
from any front lot line. Porches shall be open between the floor and the
ceiling. All railings shall be open utilizing posts and spindles.
C. The following shall not be encroachments on rear and side yard requirements for
accessory buildings.
1. Cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more than eight
(8) inches into a required yard; and provided such encroachment is no
closer than sixteen (16) inches from all lot lines. Building overhangs shall
also comply with the Minnesota State Building Code.
V. COMBINING FENCE REQUIREMENTS FROM CHAPTERS 11 AND 14 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE INTO CHAPTER 14.
Provisions regulating fences that are found in two chapters of the Municipal Code
(Section 11-901 and Section 14:4-4) are proposed to be merged into the Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 14). The following proposed amendments combine and reorganize
fence provisions. Deletion of provisions in Section 11-901 will be made during
recodification.
Section 14:3-1 Definitions
Fence. Any artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials
erected to enclose, divide, or screen areas of land.
Section 14:4-4 - Fences
The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall section.
Fence posts may extend no more than eight (8) inches above the required height limit of a
fence. In the case where the fence section has variable heights, the height of the fence
shall be the average height. Fence heights shall be limited as follows:
1. A fence or wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height if it is located in any side or
rear yard.
41
2. A fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed three and one-half (3 1/2) feet in height if
located in a front yard.
3. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if the yard in which it is
placed abuts State Highway 100, Interstate 394, State Highway 7, State Highway
169 or their adjacent frontage roads.
4. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or
rear yard in an "R" Use District which abuts property in a "C", "O", or "I" District
or abuts a railroad right of way, school, church or other public building.
5. A fence or wall may exceed six (6) feet in height in any side or rear yard when it
is required as part of a bufferyard, but may not exceed (8) feet in height.
6. A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted
in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of Section 14:4-6, is used as
a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used
as a front yard.
No fence, hedge, or wall, or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted which is not
in compliance with Section 14:4-6.
Any fence or wall over six (6) feet in height constructed as a result of this section shall be
constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90 percent opaque. It shall be
considered a structure, shall require a building permit, and shall meet all Uniform
Building Code requirements for a structure.
A. Fence Location
1. All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the party
requiring or requesting the construction of the fence. It shall be the
responsibility of the party installing the fence to ensure that it is
constructed on private property.
2. No fence shall be constructed or permitted on any public property or right-
of-way without the express authorization from the public agency having
jurisdiction over the property or right-of-way.
B. Prohibited Fences
1. Electrical Fences
2. Barbed Wire Fences, unless permitted by an exception.
42
3. Any fence, wall, hedge, or other visual obstruction of any kind which is not in
compliance with Section 14:4-6
C. Height – Height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or
wall section. In the case where a fence has variable heights or where the ground
slopes, the height of the fence shall be the average height, but in no case, shall the
height of any one point exceed six (6) inches above the maximum allowed by this
section. Fence posts may exceed eight (8) inches above the maximum allowed by
this section.
1. A fence or wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height if it is located in the any
side or rear yard.
2. A fence, wall or hedge shall not exceed three and one-half (3 ½) feet in height
if located in a front yard.
D. Exceptions
1. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or
rear yard which abuts Interstate 394, State Highway 100, State Highway 7,
State Highway 169, or their adjacent frontage road.
2. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or
rear yard in an “R” Use District which abuts property in the “C”, “O”, or “I”
Use Districts, or abuts a railroad right-of-way, school, church, or other public
building.
3. A fence or wall shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height if placed in any side or
rear yard when it is required as part of a bufferyard.
4. A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height
permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of Section
14:4-6, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does
not adjoin a yard used as a front yard.
5. Barbed wire may be used by certain industrial and public service users for
health and safety purposes. However, the barbed wire cannot be used at a
height lower than six (6) feet six (6) inches, and the overall height of the fence
including the barbed wire cannot exceed eight (8) feet.
E. Construction & Maintenance
1. Every fence shall be constructed so the finished side of the fence is facing
towards the neighboring properties exposing the structural side to the party
requiring or requesting the fence. Alternating board fences which are finished
43
on both sides shall be considered as complying with this section of the
ordinance.
2. Both sides of the fence shall be maintained in a condition of good repair.
3. Any fence that is potentially dangerous to the public safety or health by reason
of construction or sharp projections or protrusions shall be removed or
repaired.
4. Any fence over six (6) feet in height shall be constructed of a non-metallic
material and shall be 90 percent opaque, unless the fence is used for security
purposes in the “I” Use Districts.
5. Any fence or wall constructed over six (6) feet in height shall be considered a
structure, require a building permit, and meet all Uniform Building Code
requirements for a structure.
VI. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
State Statute had been amended to delete the language “if a conflict exists between the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, zoning takes precedence”. Staff is concerned that
the removal of this language leaves some ambiguity relative to the subject of conflict between
these documents, and is proposing the following amendments to clarify the issue.
Section 14:1-1.2 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE (Of the Zoning Ordinance)
G. Require that development proceed according to the principles, goals, objectives,
implementation strategies, and land use designations and policies established in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 14:6-5.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS
Any conditional Uses for which a Conditional Use Permit is issued: No Conditional Use Permit
shall be issued unless the following findings are made:
1. Shall be It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use
designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and policies implementation
strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Shall It is not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community as a whole.
3. Shall be It is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the
zoning district in which the Conditional Use is located.
44
4. Shall It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
5. Shall It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in
close proximity to the conditional use.
6. Shall be It is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans
prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the
use by the City Council. These plans shall be presented to the Planning Director
Community Development Director with the application for the conditional Use Permit.
The Planning Director Community Development Director shall prepare a report for the
City Council reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of such plans.
7. Shall be It is subject to drainage and utility plans prescribing locations for City water,
City sewer, fire hydrants, manholes, power, telephone, and cable lines, natural gas mains,
and other service facilities prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State
of Minnesota and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the City
Council. These plans shall be presented tot he Director of Public Works with the
application for the Conditional Use Permit. The director of Public Works shall prepare a
report for the City council reviewing the adequacy and feasibility of such plans.
8. Shall be It is subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional
use permit when, in the opinion of the City Council, such additional conditions are
necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such
additional conditions may be imposed in those situations where the other dimensional
standards, performance standards, conditions or requirements in this Ordinance are
insufficient to achieve the objectives contained in Section 14:1-1.2 of this Ordinance. In
these circumstances, the City council may impose restrictions and conditions on the
conditional sue permit which are more stringent than those set forth in this Ordinance and
which are consistent with the general conditions above.
Section 14:8-2.6 BUILDING PERMITS
An application for a building permit for the erection, alteration or enlargement of a structure not
involving a change in ownership or occupant shall be also constitute an application for a
Certificate of Occupancy. No building permit shall be issued unless the building or structures
and proposed use of the land comply with the requirements of this Ordinance. If a conflict exists
between the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan land use designation on land for which a
building permit for new construction, additions or enlargements is requested, no building permit
shall be issued until the conflict is remedied. All applications for a building permit shall include
a current survey an accurate site plan of the property and shall state the proposed use of the
building, the land uses on all adjacent parcels, and such other information the zoning
administrator may require to determine compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AND HOUSEKEEPING
45
The following amendments are intended to clarify and standardize code requirements within
various sections of the code to address ambiguity, reference errors, etc. Several definitions are
also proposed to be modified.
Section 14:5-3.2(D)(29) - Shopping Center Land Use Definition
The last sentence of the land use definition for a shopping center contains a parking
standard which already exists in the parking section. This standard should be removed
from the land use definition. Below is the proposed changes.
SHOPPING CENTER - A group of commercial uses planned, developed and/or
managed as a unit which has common parking facilities. Shopping centers may
include more than one building and more than one contiguous property. Theaters
and full service restaurants which locate within shopping centers will be
considered separate principal uses for establishing parking requirements.
Section 14:6-1.2(B)(8)(a) - Location of Parking Facilities
The sub-section referred to in this section is incorrect. There is no such sub-section in the
Zoning Ordinance. Propose changing to list the correct sub-section.
A religious institution where parking is regulated by Sub-Section 14:6-1.
2D223.A.21.
Section 14:6-1.3(A)(32) - Parking for Motor Fuel Station
This section lists out separate parking requirements for a motor service station. Not only
is the current language long, but it is also complicated. Simply be replacing with the land
use as one which should be calculated separately.
Motor Fuel Station. Eight (8) parking spaces plus four (4) additional parking
spaces for each service stall. For the purpose of calculating off-street parking, a
service stall shall have a maximum floor area of 400 square feet. A maximum of
25% of the required parking may be at the pump island. A maximum of 50% of
the parking required for service bays may be stacked parking in stalls which have
minimum dimensions of 7.5 feet wide and 16 feet long. If a motor fuel station
contains convenience grocery, food service, or motor vehicle service and repair,
the standards for each shall be applied in addition to the requirement stated
above.”
Section 14:6-4.11(A) - Non-Conforming Bufferyard
This section refers to the incorrect sub-section three (3) times in this paragraph.
Recommend changing to refer to the correct sub-section.
46
Any land use on any property which contains a non-conforming bufferyard shall
not be expanded or intensified unless the property is brought into compliance with
the standards contained in Section 14:7-4.D G. However, all non-conforming
bufferyards must comply with Section 14:7-4.D G by October 31, 1997. In
addition to other penalties provided by law, the City may withhold a Certificate of
Occupancy for any property not in compliance with Section 14:7-4.D G.
Section 14:6-1.2.C 12 - Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas.
The City Council adopted several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regulating
commercial and recreational vehicles. When these amendments were adopted, the second
paragraph of the above section which regulates parking setbacks in commercial districts
was inadvertently deleted. This amendment would restore that language and restructure
the paragraph. The proposed language is as follows:
12. Yards.
a. Parking areas shall be subject to the requirements of front yards and side
yards abutting a street in all “R” Use Districts, except that in the “R-1”,
“R-2”, and “R-3” Use Districts, parking for a detached single family or
two family house shall be permitted in the front yard under the following
conditions:
i. There is no other location on the lot where parking is possible, and
the front yard offers the only space where the required parking can
be located.
ii. Total parking and driveway area does not occupy more than 30%
of the front yard and the average width of the driveway does not
exceed 22 feet.
b. Parking areas in the “C-1”, “C-2”, “O”, “I-P” and “I-G” Use Districts shall
be permitted in the front yard and side yards abutting a street provided that
all of the following requirements are met, but in no case shall the yard be
reduced to less than six (6) feet.
i. All of the bufferyard requirements of this Ordinance are met.
ii. A solid bumper, curb, or fence not more than three and one half (3 1/2)
feet in height shall be constructed in such a position and such a manner
that no part of a parked vehicle can extend into the bufferyard.
47
VIII. ADJACENT, ABUTTING, ADJOINING
The above words are used interchangeable throughout the Zoning Ordinance, but only the word
“abutting” is defined. Staff proposes to add a definition for adjacent and adjoining and to amend
various sections of the Ordinance where the use of one of these words is not clear.
Section 14:3-1 Definitions
Abutting. Having a common border or boundary with, or being separated from such a common
border by an alley. This term is used interchangeably with adjacent and adjoining.
Adjacent. Having a common border or boundary with, or being separated from such a common
border by an alley. This term is used interchangeably with abutting and adjoining.
Adjoining. Having a common border or boundary with, or being separated from such a common
border by an alley. This term is used interchangeably with abutting and adjacent.
Whenever “abutting” or “adjacent” is used to establish performance standards, there is confusion
about whether some particular use or the entire lot is to be considered to define that relationship.
Several sections of the Ordinance need clarification and the following are proposed amendments:
Section 14:6-1 2.C.13
Parking Space Abutting “R” Use Districts: When a parking lot for between six (6) and thirty
(30) vehicles is located abutting on a parcel which abuts an “R” Use District or residential
developed property, a Bufferyard “C” shall be installed between that portion of the parking lot
visible from the abutting property and the abutting residential property. When a parking lot for
more than thirty (30) spaces is located abutting on a parcel which abuts an “R” Use District or
residentially developed property, a Bufferyard “D” shall be installed between that portion of the
parking lot visible from the abutting property and the abutting residential parcel.
Section 14:5-7.2.F.5.a
The storage area shall be screened from all abutting public streets with a Bufferyard “D”
and from any property in “R” and “C” Use Districts by a Bufferyard “F”. This bufferyard
shall include as a minimum a fence F4. Gates providing access to storage areas where
access is directly from the street tot he storage area and constitutes the only practicable
access need not be screened provided the gate does not exceed an opening width of 24
feet. Storage shall be enclosed by a solid wall or fence not less than six (6) feet high.
This wall or fence shall be screened from view of all public streets which abut the lot
containing the outdoor storage with a Bufferyard “D” and from any property in an “R” or
“C” Use District with a Bufferyard “F”.
Section 14:5-7.3 C.2.b
48
Outdoor storage areas adjoining any residential property shall install and maintain a
Bufferyard “C” at the adjoining property line. Outdoor storage areas visible from any
residential property or public street shall be screened with a Bufferyard “C”.
Section 14:5-7.2.C.2.b
Outdoor storage areas adjoining any residential property shall install and maintain a
Bufferyard “C” at the adjoining property line. Outdoor storage areas visible from any
residential property or public street shall be screened with a Bufferyard “C”.
The Planning Commission already reviewed a number of revisions clarifying the use of abutting,
adjacent, and adjoining as it pertains to uses on a lot. The following represent clarifications as
associated with drive through facilities.
Section 14:5-5.2.C.13 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE
a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located adjacent to within 100 feet
of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated
from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall.
b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
Section 14:5-5.3.C.13 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE
a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located adjacent to within 100 feet
of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated
from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall.
b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
Section 14:5-6.2.C.13 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE
a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located adjacent to within 100 feet
of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated
from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall.
b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
Section 14:5-5.3.E.1 SHOPPING CENTERS
49
c. New in-vehicle sales or service shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that
their operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the internal circulation of the
PUD and the level of service of nearby street and intersections and must comply with the
following conditions:
i. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located adjacent to
within 100 feet of any lot in an “R” Use District unless the entire facility and
stacking areas are separated from the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall.
ii. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive
through facilities and stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
Section 14:5-6.2.C.12 IN-VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE
a. Drive through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located adjacent to within 100 feet
of any lot in an “R” Use unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from
the lot in an “R” Use District by a building wall
b. A Bufferyard “D” shall be provided along the lot line between drive through facilities and
stacking areas and adjacent streets and properties.
IX. AMENDMENTS TO PARKING STANDARDS
Residential Parking Requirements
The Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces for each apartment or cluster housing unit.
This does not accommodate visitor parking if all of the required parking is located within a
structure. The Planning Commission recommended the following modification to the residential
parking requirements:
Section 14:6-1.3 A REQUIRED PARKING
RESIDENTIAL USES
2. Cluster Housing. Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. 10% or a minimum
of 4 spaces shall be available for guest parking. Available on-street parking within
300 feet of the lot accommodating the use may be used to accommodate guest
parking.
3. Multiple Dwelling. Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. 10% or a
minimum of 4 spaces shall be available for guest parking. Available on-street
parking within 300 feet of the lot accommodating the use may be used to
accommodate guest parking.
50
X. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 15% of the ground floor area of a development in
the C2 district to be residential. The Planning Commission has recommended that this number
be increased to 30%. Recent experience has shown that this smaller number seems to eliminate
vital residential options from more commercial developments.
Section 14:5-5.3.D USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
7. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CLUSTER HOUSING
d. The housing represents a maximum of 15% 30% of the ground floor area
of total development. 100% of the floor area above the ground floor may
be developed as housing.
XI. LOT DEFINITION --- ALLOW FOR TOWNHOUSE LOTS
The definition of a “lot” currently does not encompass a “townhouse” lot because by definition a
lot must have frontage on a public street. The following set of amendments is intended to extend
and clarify several definitions which involve “lots” and to make specific provisions for
townhouse lots.
Section 14:3-1 DEFINITIONS
Lot. A parcel of land created by an existing subdivision or described on a deed which has
been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles of Hennepin
County Minnesota and which is occupied or used or intended for occupancy or use and
has common ownership in its entirety. by a use permitted in this ordinance, abutting on a
public street, and of sufficient size to provide the yards required by this ordinance.
Lot, Buildable. A lot which meets the minimum lot width and area requirements of the
use district in which it is located and which has frontage on a public street. If the lot was
subdivided as part of a cluster housing development, access to a public street may be by
private street.
Lot, Substandard. A lot or parcel of land that does not meet the definition of a buildable
lot or has less than the required minimum area or width as established by this Ordinance
as a buildable parcel, and is not buildable, in which it is located and does not meet the
provisions of Section 14:4-1 of this Ordinance.
Parcel. See Lot.
51
Condominium. An estate of real property consisting of an undivided interest in common
with other purchasers in a portion of a parcel of real property, together with a separate
interest in space in a building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate
interest in other portions of such real property, such as garage space or in the case of
cluster development, a townhouse or cluster development lot.
SECTION 14:4-1 LOT PROVISIONS
B. Lots of record - buildable
1. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance in the
“R-1”, “R-2”, “R-3”, or “R-4” use District, which does not meet either the
area or the width requirements of this Ordinance may be utilized for single
family detached dwelling purposes if the dimensions of its area and width
are at least sixty-six and two-thirds per cent (66 2/3%) of the requirements
of this Ordinance. This provision does not include cluster or townhouse
lots.
2. Any single family detached dwelling which exists on the effective date of
this Ordinance on any substandard lot located within the “R-1”, “R-2”, or
“R-3”, or “R-4” Use District which is later destroyed by fire or other
natural disaster or otherwise removed may be rebuilt if a building permit
for reconstruction is issued within 365 days of its destruction and if it
otherwise is in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
3. Any substandard lot which is in common ownership with an abutting
parcel of property lot on or after the effective date of this Ordinance may
not be developed and no building permit shall be issued for such
development unless the two parcels lots are combined to increase the
substandard dimensions of the lot to meet the area and width requirements
of this Ordinance. Under these circumstances only one single family
dwelling may be built on the two parcels lots.
XII. USABLE OPEN SPACE.
Historically and until the adoption of the Subdivision Ordinance in March of 1997, the City had
no requirements for park dedication. In order to compensate for this, provisions were included in
the Zoning Ordinance which require usable open space to be provided as part of development in
certain zoning districts, such as the “Office” district, and for certain types of land uses. There are
open space requirements for many uses where a number of persons congregates, for multi-family
and “group quarter” residential development, and for uses such as day care. The standards were
adopted to insure that recreational opportunities were available on site for these uses.
52
With the adoption of the 1997 Subdivision Ordinance, park dedication is now a requirement for
all subdivisions. The authority to require park dedication in subdivisions is granted to cities by
State Statute. State Statute does not grant this same authority through zoning. What this means
is that if provisions for park dedication were added to the Zoning Ordinance, these would be
considered “impact fees” and may not be upheld if challenged by a developer.
The quantity of land required for park dedication depends upon the type and density of any given
development and the size of the development parcel. The Ordinance also allows for cash-in-lieu
of park dedication at the discretion of the City.
What has resulted for actual development in SLP is that if an apartment is constructed on land
which is already platted and no new subdivision is required, the City cannot require park
dedication, but does require the developer to create private usable open space. If an apartment
development does require a subdivision, then the City requires both park dedication and private
usable open space. This results in inequitable treatment of similar uses based upon previous land
use actions, most specifically, whether the property was previously subdivided.
From a practical point of view, future residents of a new development benefit from both public
parks and from private usable open space. However, usable open space is often split into several
areas, some provided in a front yard next to a street, other on land left over. Often the space is
not programmed for recreation. Provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance for park dedication
specifically require “Land shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use and shall be at a
location convenient to the people to be served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of
proposed park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology,
tree cover, access and location. Land with dead trees, trash, junk, pollutants, and unwanted
structures is not acceptable.”
Provisions governing usable open space are found in three sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
14:3 Definitions, 14: 4 General Provisions, and 14:5 Use District Regulations. Section 14:5
gives specific requirements for usable open space for a variety of land uses, including multi-
family housing, cluster housing, day care, group homes, nursing homes, etc.
Another issue related to performance standards for uses requiring usable open space is that of
accessibility for uses such as nursing homes where residents often have mobility restrictions.
.
The Planning Commission recommends several amendments related to usable open space.
These include provisions that partially exempt the open space requirement where there is also
park land dedication and provisions that require open space to be accessible.
Also, the current Ordinance standards regulating multiple-family and cluster housing are
combined within the R-4 and RC Use Districts. The Planning Commission has recommended
these be separated because site requirements are typically different for each. For instance, cluster
housing tends to have driveway access to each unit, where apartment buildings do not.
53
Section 14:5-4.5 D USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (R-4)
1. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING/CLUSTER HOUSING
Conditions
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in the front yard.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the building
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to share
common walls.
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of
internal private roadways or parking lots.
f. No portion of the required road system may be used to satisfy the off-street parking
requirements.
g. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that
abut a public streets.
1. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING
Conditions:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive plan as a collector
or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without
generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard.
New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of
land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a
minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
building
54
d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line
of internal private roadways or parking lots.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must
meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to
allow on-street parking.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the
lot that abut a public streets. Sidewalks shall also be provided between the public
street and parking areas to all building entrances.
2. CLUSTER HOUSING
Conditions:
a. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard.
New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of
land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a
minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit.
b. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
building
c. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to
share common walls.
d. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a
sidewalk closest to the building or the back of the curb line of internal private
roadways or parking lots.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must
meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to
allow on-street parking.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the
lot that abut a public street and along at least one side of interior private streets.
Section 14:5-4.6.C.12 USES PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS (R-C)
12. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING/CLUSTER HOUSING
Conditions
55
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than 1/2 can be located in the front yard.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the building
d. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to share
common walls.
e. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curb line of
internal private roadways or parking lots.
f. No portion of the required road system may be used to satisfy the off-street parking
requirements.
g. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that
abut a public streets.
12. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING
Conditions:
a. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive plan as a
collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided
without generating significant traffic on local residential streets.
b. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front
yard. New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in
lieu of land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a
minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit.
c. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of
the building
d. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the
curb line of internal private roadways or parking lots.
56
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system,
it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision
ordinance to allow on-street parking.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all
sides of the lot that abut a public streets. Sidewalks shall also be provided
between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances.
13. CLUSTER HOUSING
Conditions:
a. Building lots shall contain a minimum of 400 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit and no more than one half (1/2) can be located in the front yard.
New developments which are required or elect to dedicate land or cash in lieu of
land for parks, trails and open space in accordance with the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance may reduce this requirement on a one for one basis to a
minimum of 200 square feet per dwelling unit.
b. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the
building
c. Side and rear yards may be reduced to zero feet where dwellings are designed to
share common walls.
d. Attached garages shall be located a minimum of 18 feet from the edge of a
sidewalk closest to the building or the back of the curb line of internal private
roadways or parking lots.
e. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must
meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to
allow on-street parking.
f. Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that
abut a public street and along at least one side of interior private streets.
Several sections of the Zoning Ordinance require usable open space to be provided as a condition
for allowing a use to exist. Usable open space, for example, is required for group housing
establishments such as nursing homes and group homes. Staff proposes that for those uses
where residents are likely to have mobility restrictions that the usable open space be accessible.
57
SECTION 14:4-3 REQUIRED YARDS/OPEN SPACE
E. Usable open space which is required by this Ordinance shall contain improvements such
as outdoor swimming pools, patio areas, game areas, landscaped and grassy areas which
contain benches, sculpture gardens, pedestrian paths and trails, or similar outdoor fixtures
or features. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not constitute usable open space.
The minimum dimensions of usable open space shall be 30 feet Usable open space shall
be available and accessible to and usable by all persons occupying the dwelling units,
group facility, or other use for which the usable open space is required.
XIII. CLARIFICATION OF PUD MODIFICATIONS.
When the Zoning Ordinance was originally drafted in 1991, the intent of the PUD section was to
allow deviations from certain requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to promote City goals and
allow flexibility to a developer. The PUD was not originally intended to skirt the variance
process for all code regulations, although that has been the result.
Since the adoption of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, philosophies have changed relative to building
densities, especially as applied to the Park Commons area, and the maximum deviations are not
adequate to meet the goals of that area in particular. A recent example is the assisted living
proposal on Park Center Boulevard, where development densities exceeded those allowed by
PUD. Amendments were recently made to the Zoning Ordinance which exempt development
from Zoning Ordinance regulations in the RC district, if the development has an approved
redevelopment plan which has been adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This
could potentially weaken the Zoning Code as the official control for all properties in the RC Use
District by encouraging developers to request a Comprehensive Plan amendment instead.
The following amendments are suggested to the PUD section that will restrict the types of
ordinance deviations allowed by the PUD, and also increase the maximum deviations that can be
approved by the PUD process.
Section 14:6-7.1 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The City Council finds that a Planned Unit Development process will benefit the City and its
residents because the process permits greater flexibility in the development of a parcel by
tailoring the development to the site and neighborhood. Such benefits include, but are not
limited to:
A. Greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land
development.
B. Higher standards of site and building design
58
C. More efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high
quality development at a lesser cost.
D. Provision of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made more usable and
be more suitably located that would otherwise be provided under conventional
development procedures.
E. A flexible approach to development is permitted by allowing certain limited
modifications of the strict application of regulations of the Commercial underlying Use
Districts that are in harmony with the goals, purpose and intent of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 14:6-7.2 APPLICATION
The provisions of the PUD section of this Ordinance shall be administered as follows:
B. Approval of a Planned Unit Development shall not alter the underlying Use District
classification or the application of Use District regulations unless they are modified under
the terms of Section 14:6-7.4 of this Ordinance or limited by final approved development
plans or development agreements which are mutually agreed to by the City and the
project applicant.
A. Modifications of Use District regulations may be approved as part of the overall approval
of the PUD, if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The modifications bear a demonstrable relationship to, and are consistent
with, the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The adverse impact and effect of such modifications will be eliminated by
screening, landscaping, superior site and building design and other features related
to planning, design, and construction.
3. The modification is necessary to achieve the purposes of this section of the
Ordinance.
4. The modifications are limited to those allowed in Table 6-7.A and fall
within allowable limits authorized by Section 14:6-7.4.C of in this Ordinance
SECTION 14:6-7.4 MODIFICATIONS
TABLE 6-7.A
Allowable Modifications in PUDs.
Ordinance Requirement Maximum Modification Allowed
Distance From Property Lines, No Required Yards
Except When Abutting
Residential Zoned or Used Property
59
Distance From Other Buildings As Building Code Allows
Building Height 35% increase or as No maximum if consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan
Density 10% increase or as consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
Ground Floor Area 5% increase
Floor Area Ratio 10% increase Limited by height, density and ground
floor area restrictions
Usable Open Space 20% decrease
Parking 15% decrease in addition to other allowable
Ordinance reductions
XIV. PARKING RAMPS
The Zoning Ordinance currently regulates exterior building materials for buildings. The Zoning
Administrator has determined, based on the current definition for buildings, that a parking ramp
is not a building and therefore, does not have to comply with architectural controls found in
Section 14:6-6. This section regulates building materials, architectural compatibility within
developments, etc.
Although requiring 60% class I building materials for parking ramps may be unwarranted, certain
architectural controls are nonetheless desirable. The Planning Commission has recommended
the following architectural controls for parking ramps:
Section 6-6.2 STANDARDS
K. Parking Ramps:
All parking ramps constructed after the adoption of this Ordinance shall meet the
following design standards:
1. Parking ramp facades which are visible from off site shall display an
integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and
building colors with the principal building.
2. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp
facades.
60
3. If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right of way or
recreational trail, the façade facing the street shall be subject to the same
requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings.
XV. SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS
Provisions for amending the Municipal Code are contained in several documents. The City
Charter has general provisions for all Code amendments. Other amendment requirements are
contained in State Statute. The Zoning Ordinance contains an amendment process for Zoning
Ordinance amendments that mimics State Statute. The Zoning Ordinance also contains a process
for amending the Comprehensive Plan.
Subdivision Ordinance amendments fall outside of State Statute provisions. The Zoning
Ordinance is also silent about how this document is amended. The result is that the Subdivision
Ordinance falls under the provisions of City Charter as they apply to the amendment process for
all other Municipal Codes. Currently, the Charter assigns the authority for Municipal Code
amendments to the City Council, requiring only that these have two readings at the Council.
Because of the nature of the Subdivision Ordinance and its relationship to development, staff
feels that the Planning Commission should review amendments to it. Therefore, the following
amendment is proposed the Subdivision Ordinance
Section 14-956: Amendment Process
No amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance shall occur without review and recommendation of
the Planning Commission.
Other proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance include restructuring of the Ordinance
section which identifies exempt lot splits and additional provisions to reasonably control lot
configurations in new subdivisions.
Currently, lot width is measured at the setback line. Recently, a request was made for an
administrative subdivision of a lot where the lot width at the setback line did not meet the
required distance for the split, but by using a “zigzag” in the lot line, could meet the provisions,
although not the intent of the Ordinance. The propose amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance
require design standards for lots that reduce the opportunity for “creative subdivisions” which do
not meet the intent of the Ordinance.
Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-908 EXCEPTIONS
The following land divisions are exempt from Sections 14-910 through 14-929 other sections of
this Subdivision Ordinance, except for Section 14-937 Park and Trail Dedication. Upon request,
61
the Zoning Administrator shall within ten (10) days, certify that the proposed subdivision is
exempt
A. Divisions of land where the land involved has been previously platted into lots
and blocks and designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the Office of the
Registrar of Deeds or Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County and where the division
involves no more than two (2) lots, the division will not cause the land or any structure to
be in violation of this Subdivision Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, or the Building
Code, the subdivision will not involve any new street or road, or the extension of
municipal facilities, or the creation of any public improvement, subdivision will not
involve any outlot, and the purpose of the division is to divide a single parcel into two
parcels.
A. EXEMPT SUBDIVISIONS. Divisions of land are exempt if all of the
following conditions are met:
1. the land involved has been previously platted into lots and
blocks and is designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Deeds or Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County
2. the division involves no more than two (2) previously
platted lots
3. the division will not cause the land or any structure on the
land to be in violation of this Subdivision Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, or the Building Code
4. the subdivision will not involve any new street or road, or
the extension of municipal facilities, or the creation of any public
improvement
5. the subdivision will not involve any outlot
6. the purpose of the division is to divide a single parcel into
two parcels
Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-931 Blocks and Lots:
B. LOTS:
1. Area and Configuration: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not
be less that that established by the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time
of adoption of the final plat. The minimum lot width established by the
Zoning Ordinance shall be maintained for a continuous 1/3 of the lot
depth.
Subdivision Ordinance Section 14-941: MONUMENTS:
B. Pipes or steel rods shall be placed at each lot within one year of recording the final plat.
All United States, State, County or other official bench marks, monuments or triangular stations
62
in or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise position and shall be recorded on the
plat. All lot and block dimensions shall be shown on the plat and all necessary angles pertaining
to the lots and blocks, as an aid to future surveys shall be shown on the plat. No ditto marks will
be permitted in indicating dimensions.
XVI. AMENDMENTS TO THE ADMINISTRATION SECTION OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE
Procedures for administering some provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be
changed. The following includes proposed modifications to the Administration Section of the
Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of:
• deleting procedures relative to certificates of occupancy because these are covered
elsewhere in the Municipal Code
• amending provisions to allow public hearings at the Planning Commission
• allowing variances to be granted by the City Council in those cases where a
variance is part of an application for conditional use permits or PUD.
• Adding provisions that allow staff to initiate amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
• modifying the Comprehensive Plan amendment process to correspond with State
Statute requirements.
SECTION 14:8-2.0 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
No person shall use or occupy any land or building within the City of St. Louis Park without first
obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
SECTION 14:8-2.1 USES REQUIPJNG OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES:
A Certificate of Occupancy is required to be obtained from the City for any of the following:
a. The establishment of a new land use.
b. A change or expansion of any existing land use.
C. Any change in a nonconformity.
d. The construction, alteration or expansion of a building.
e. Any change in the ownership or occupant of any building or land as regulated by Section 15-
202. 101.
63
A change in the ownership or occupant of a one or two family home as regulated by Section 15-
330 or a change in a tenant of an apartment building licensed under Section 15-340 shall be
exempt from this Certificate of Occupancy requirement.
SECTION 14:8-2.2 RESPONSIBILITY
Both the property owner and the lessee shall be responsible for securing the Certificate of
Occupancy required by this section.
SECTION 14:8-2.3 APPLICATION AND INFORMATION REQUIRED
The applicant shall provide the information necessary to determine compliance with this
Ordinance on forms provided by the City. If the application is for a building permit, a change in
a non-conforming use, or a change in land use classification, the applicant shall furnish a site
plan drawn to a scale not to exceed 1 inch to 50 feet showing the proposed size and location of
the structures, buffer yards, parking areas, drainage, lighting, loading berths, and landscaping on
or to be installed on the site.
The City shall not issue the permit or Certificate of Occupancy if the information provided by the
applicant is insufficient to determine compliance with this Ordinance.
SECTION 14:8-2.4 ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued by the Zoning Administrator upon
satisfactory completion of the application if the Zoning Administrator determines that the use
complies with all applicable sections of the Ordinance Code and, in the case of an application for
a building permit, approval of the building construction has been given by the Building Official.
14:8 ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 14:8-2.5 REVOCATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
A false statement of any fact material to the decision whether to issue a Certificate of Occupancy
made in an application for a Certificate of Occupancy shall automatically void the Certificate.
Whenever the City determines a false statement has been made, the Zoning Administrator shall
notify the holder of the Certificate in writing that is void. Any person who occupies or uses the
land or building ten days after notice that the Certificate previously issued is void has been
mailed, shall be guilty of a violation of this Ordinance unless that person applies for and secures
a new Certificate based upon a true statement of fact.
SECTION 14: 8-2.6 BUILDING PERMITS
An application for a building permit for the erection, alteration or enlargement of a structure not
involving a change in ownership or occupant shall be an application for a Certificate of
Occupancy. No building permit shall be issued unless the building or structures and proposed
64
use of the land comply with the requirements of this Ordinance. All applications for a building
permit shall include a current survey of the property and shall state the proposed use of the
building, the land uses on all adjacent parcels, and such other information the zoning
administrator may require to determine compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
The applicant shall be responsible to determine the following:
a. Whether permits or approvals are required from any other governmental
agency.
b. Whether the property is located within a protected wetland.
C. Whether a structure will be built over an existing easement.
SECTION 14:8-2.7 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
A Certificate of Occupancy shall be secured before any change in ownership or
occupancy of land or buildings as required by Section 15-202. 101 of the Ordinance Code and for
any change in the use of a building or land which does not require either a Building Permit or a
Certificate of Occupancy under the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Ordinance Code.
SECTION 14:8-2.8 NON-CONFORMING USE
A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for all legal non-conforming uses of land or buildings
created by adoption of this Ordinance, or in existence at the effective date of this Ordinance.
Application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use shall be filed with the
Zoning Administrator by the owner or lessee of the building or land occupied by the
nonconforming use within one (1) year of the effective date of this Ordinance.
Failure to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use or refusal of the Zoning
Administrator to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use after an application
has been made shall be prima facie evidence that such use did not lawfully exist at the effective
date of this Ordinance. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be subject to any inspection
of the premises the City deems appropriate. The City may impose conditions consistent with and
in furtherance of requirements of the City Ordinance Code.
Any subsequent change in ownership, lessee, size or manner of operation in a non-conforming
use shall require that a new Certificate of Occupancy for non-conforming use be issued.
SECTION 14:8-3.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Hearings,
65
No Conditional Use Permit shall be issued until a public hearing on the request has been
held by the City Council Planning Commission.
B. Conditions and Modifications.
The City Council may impose reasonable conditions in any Conditional Use Permit and
may, at any time at its election or upon application by the property owner, modify the
conditions of an existing Conditional Use Permit as changing circumstances warrant. No
modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit may be made until a public hearing
has been held by the City Council Planning Commission in the manner outlined in
Section 14:8-4.2 except that minor amendments shall require only notice to the holder of
the Permit and approval of the City Council.
SECTION 14:8-3.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
The City Council may grant Conditional Use Permits for uses and purposes authorized by this
Ordinance by resolution and may impose such additional conditions and safeguards in permits as
may be necessary to protect the Comprehensive Plan and the general purpose and intent of this
Ordinance. Applications for Conditional Use Permits shall include a site plan and such other
information required by the City which shall be processed in the following way:
SECTION 14:8-3.3 VARIANCES-LIMITATIONS
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) may grant Variances from the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards in the Variances granted in
cases where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, shape of a lot, exceptional topographic or
water conditions, or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of the lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship to the owner of the lot in developing or using the lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible in the Use District in which said lot is located.
C. Notice. After receipt of a complete application, the Planning Director City shall set a date
for a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals for any variance request within
forty-five (45) days of after the application for a variance is received by the City. The
public hearing shall be held only after the notice required by Section 14:8-3.1(A) of this
Ordinance has been given.
I. Combined Variance and Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development Process, or
Subdivision. The City Council will act as the BOZA for variance requests made in
conjunction with a conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision. The
66
Planning Commission shall hold the public hearing on the variance request, review the
variance request along with the conditional use permit PUD application, or subdivision
process, and report its Findings and recommendations to the City Council.
SECTION 14:8-4.0 AMENDMENTS
SECTION 14:8-4.1 GENERAL
A. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment of this Ordinance shall be
initiated by:
a. A petition of the owner or owners of the actual property, the zoning of
which is proposed to be changed.
b. A recommendation of the Planning Commission.
c. Action of the City Council.
d. A recommendation of the Community Development Director.
B. Reference to the Planning Commission. Except in the case of an initial recommendation
by the Planning Commission, Any proposed change shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission and its recommendation shall be submitted to the City Council before
further proceedings are taken on any zoning request. The Planning Commission shall
meet, consider the proposed change, and submit its recommendation to the City Council
within sixty (60) days after submission of the matter to it. If no recommendation is given
to the City Council by the Planning Commission within sixty (60) days after the request
for a recommendation has been made to the Planning Commission, the City Council may
take action without a Planning Commission recommendation.
SECTION 14:8-4.2 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS
CHANGING ZONING DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARIES THEREOF
B. Hearings. After an application is received for a change to the Zoning Ordinance, the City
shall set a date for a public hearing. At the time set for the hearing, the City Council
Planning Commission shall hear arguments for and against the proposed change, and may
continue the hearing from time to time not exceeding sixty (60) forty-five (45) days from
the original date specified in the notice of hearing. If a hearing is continued more than
once, another notice shall be given in accordance with Section 14:8-4.2(C). Final vote on
the proposed change shall be taken within the sixty (60) days, unless an extension of time
is agreed to by the applicant. If the hearing is continued more than once, re-notice to the
public shall be required.
67
C. Notice. When the City Council receives the recommendation of the Planning
Commission on any request for change, or if the Planning Commission has not given the
City Council a recommendation within sixty (60) days after submission of the request to
it, the City Council shall set a time for a public hearing on the request. A notice of the
time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the
City at least ten (10) days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves
changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall
be mailed at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected
property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which
the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible
for mailing the notice may use the records of the County Auditor of Hennepin County or
any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the
notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested
to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the record of the proceedings.
The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice
shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this
subsection has been made. Proof of service shall be made by the affidavit of the persons
serving same and shall be filed with the City Clerk.
The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources shall be notified at least ten
days in advance of the public hearing of any request to amend the boundaries of the FW,
FF, AND FD districts.
FW, FF, or FD boundaries shall not be amended unless the City provides adequate
information to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources that the map is
in error or the lands are adequately protected from flood.
D. Zoning Text Changes. A zoning text change shall require published notice of the public
hearing for two (2) consecutive weeks as required in Subsection B C above.
E. Fees For Rezoning and Amendments to the Text. No application for change in the
boundaries of any zoning district or for change in the text of the Zoning Ordinance shall
be filed until the person making the request has paid to the City Treasurer a fee the
amount which has been set by Resolution of the City Council.
If the City Planning Commission initiates proceedings for rezoning and text amendments,
the Council may require that such payment be made by owners of property involved
before making any change.
F. Planning Commission Recommendation. Any proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. After holding a public hearing and
deliberating on the request, the Planning Commission shall render a finding that all
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance map and text are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and shall submit its findings and recommendation to the City
Council within forty-five (45) days after submission of the matter to it. If no
68
recommendation is given to the City Council by the Planning Commission within forty-
five (45) days after the request for a recommendation has been made to the Planning
Commission, the City Council may take action without a Planning Commission
recommendation.
G. When the City Council receives the recommendation of the Planning Commission on any
request for a Zoning Ordinance change, or if the Planning Commission has not given the
City Council a recommendation within forty-five (45) days after submission of the
request to it, the City Council shall act on the proposed change within the forty-five
(45) days, unless an extension of time is agreed to by the applicant.
SECTION 14:8-4.3 SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR COMPREHENSIVE REZONING
Whenever the Planning Commission, in its capacity or acting on referral from the City Council,
recommends a comprehensive rezoning of a substantial part of the City which consists of not less
than fifty (50) lots of platted area or five (5) acres of unplatted area in order to conform to
changing conditions, the City Council may make all or a part of that recommendation effective
by amendment to this Ordinance. In such a case, the provisions of Section 14:8-5.2 shall not be
applicable; but the procedure for such amendment shall be as follows:
C. Planning Commission Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold one public hearing
in a manner described in Section 14:8-4. l(A) shall meet and conduct a public hearing
upon the proposed rezoning amendment at the time and place specified in the notice prior
to making a recommendation for a Comprehensive Rezoning to the City Council. The
hearing may be adjourned from time to time by the City Council Planning Commission,
but it shall not be continued more than ninety (90) sixty (60) days from the date of the
original hearing..
D. City Council Hearing the City Council shall meet and conduct a public hearing upon the
proposed rezoning amendment at the time and place specified in the notice. The hearing
may be adjourned from time to time by the City Council, but it shall not be continued
more than ninety (90) days from the date of the original hearing.
E. D Adoption. The City Council shall act upon the proposed rezoning not less than seven (7)
days nor more than sixty (60) days after the hearing has been closed it receives a
recommendation from the Planning Commission. A two thirds (2/3) vote of all members
of the Council shall be required to adopt any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The
City Council may alter the amendment proposed, but if the alteration results in a
modification of the zoning map filed at the time of the first publication of notice of the
hearing, it shall not be made until ten (10) days after notice has been given by registered
mail to the owner of the property to be zoned that an amendment is being considered and
may be adopted which is different from that shown on the zoning map filed in support of
the requested zoning change.
69
F. E. Publication. If an Ordinance is adopted which provided for comprehensive rezoning even
though less than the entire City is affected, the City Council shall require that new zoning
maps be prepared showing the zoning district boundaries after adoption of the
comprehensive amendment. Those maps shall be published as part of the publication of
the Ordinance amendment. The Zoning Ordinance need not describe the tracts of land
included in each zoning district in any way other than by reference to the zoning maps
required by this Section.
Section 14:8-4.4 PROCEDURE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Comprehensive Plan is a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for
guiding the physical, social and economic development, both private and public, of the City of
St. Louis Park. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies and standards, a land use plan,
a community facilities plan, a transportation plan and recommendations for plan execution and is
an adopted statement of City policy concerning development. The Zoning Ordinance is adopted
for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan Comprehensive Plan.
However, any amendment to the zoning Ordinance map or text which is inconsistent with the
comprehensive Plan shall not be invalidated as a result of the inconsistency. The Planning
Commission shall render a finding that all amendments to the Zoning Ordinance map and text
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
AMENDMENTS.
A. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall
be initiated by:
1. A petition of the owner or owners of the actual property, the guiding of which is
proposed to be changed.
2. A recommendation of the Planning Commission.
3. Action of the City Council.
4. A recommendation of the Community Development Director.
B. Amendment Process:
A1. Any person requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan shall submit an
application in the form prescribed by the City. The application shall describe the
change requested, state the reasons for the requested change, and attach
documentation to support the request. The applicant shall pay a fee established
by the City Council when the application is filed with the Director of Community
Development. If the request requires a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map,
two copies of a list of the names and addresses of property owners of record of all
properties within 500 feet of the parcel for which the change is requested shall be
obtained from the County Auditor and filed with the application. The names and
70
addresses of property owners within 500 feet may be obtained from the County
Auditor of Hennepin County or other appropriate records.
B2. Upon receipt of the application, The Director of Community Development shall
review the request and determine whether a minor amendment or major
amendment as defined by guidelines established by the Metropolitan Council of
the Twin Cities for its review of Comprehensive Plan amendments is requested.
If a major amendment is requested, a copy of the proposed amendment shall be
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for its review forward a copy of the
proposed request to adjacent municipalities, the affected school district, Hennepin
County, and the affected watershed district within ten (10) working days of receipt
of the request by the City.
C3. The Director of Community Development shall set a date for a public hearing on
the request by the Planning Commission. Notice of the public hearing shall be
published at least ten (10) days before the date of hearing, and, if the request
requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map, notice shall be mailed to
all property owners of record within 500 feet of the subject property at least ten
(10) days before the date of the hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold the
public hearing on the date stated in the notice and may continue the hearing once.
If the Planning Commission believes it necessary to continue the hearing a second
time, a new notice shall be published for the continued hearing.
D4. The Planning Commission shall consider the testimony received at the public
hearing, the staff reports, and other material it deems pertinent and shall report its
findings and recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall
receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission and set a date for a
public hearing on the request before the City Council. If the request is a "minor
amendment" as defined by the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, the public
hearing shall be held as soon as is convenient and is consistent with notice
requirements. If the request is a "major amendment", the public hearing shall be
held after the statutory review period granted to the Metropolitan Council has
elapsed.
E5. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the request after ten (10) days
published notice has been given and, if the request requires an amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan Map, ten (10) days after notice has been mailed to all
property owners of record within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of
the request.
F6. All Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be adopted by resolution of the City
Council approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of all members of the Council
contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council. The resolution shall be
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council within 10 days following City Council
71
approval. The resolution shall be published following its adoption no later than
twenty-one (21) days after the date of its passage. The date of passage is the date
of final Metropolitan Council approval if no revisions are requested. The
resolution shall be effective upon its publication.
G7. No request for a zoning change for property affected by a pending request for a
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment shall be processed until the request has
either received final action by the City Council or is withdrawn by the applicant.
Requests for Zoning Ordinance amendments for property affected by a pending
request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment may be handled concurrently,
however, the approval of such application shall be conditioned upon the approval
of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council and shall not
become effective until after such approval is received.
H8. If the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment involves a land use or density
change on a particular parcel of land, no request for a conditional use permit,
planned unit development, or variance related to that parcel shall be accepted for
processing until action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been
completed.
C. Exceptions: When changes to the Comprehensive Plan involve a complete
Comprehensive Plan revision, notice to individual property owners is not required.
However, notice of public hearing at the Planning Commission shall be published in the
official newspaper on three consecutive weeks, the latest at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing.
SECTION 14:8-6.4.GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT USES
D Property covered by a continued special permit may be expanded, altered or modified subject
to all of the following:
3. The expansion, alteration, or modification shall follow the same
procedures for approval as required by Section 14:8 for Conditional Use Permit
amendments. This includes a finding that the amended continued special permit
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Judie Erickson
72
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6d
Meeting of September 7, 1999
6d. Public hearing and First Reading of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to
allow restaurants with liquor as permitted with conditions in the C-2, General
Commercial District
Case No. 99-13-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to postpone indefinitely the public hearing and First
Reading of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
Background:
Vladimir Velikson is requesting a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change restaurants
with liquor from a Conditional Use Permit to permitted with conditions in the C-2 District. His
desire is to open a restaurant which would serve liquor with meals in the Texa-Tonka Shopping
Center. The Planning Commission reviewed this request on August 18, 1999 and voted 3-1 to
pass on the request to the City Council without a recommendation. At that meeting, the applicant
raised the issue of having live music and a dance floor in the restaurant. As staff had not had
time to analyze this issue and make a recommendation, the Planning Commission deferred
consideration of this issue to the City Council.
Staff has determined that the live music/dance floor component as proposed would require a
variance. Therefore, Mr. Velikson is asking the City Council to continue his request in order to
pursue a variance (please see attached letter). As it is uncertain exactly when or if the request
would come back before the City Council, and the earliest it would come back is November 1,
1999, staff is recommending that the public hearing and First Reading be postponed indefinitely.
If the request will come back to the City Council, staff will readvertise the public hearing.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public hearing and First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance text
amendment request be postponed indefinitely.
Attachments:
• Letter from Vladimir Velikson requesting a continuance
• Letter from Vladimir Velikson describing restaurant concept
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate
73
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
74
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6e
Meeting of September 7, 1999
6e. City Land Sale at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
This report considers the adoption of an ordinance which authorizes the sale of City
property to the Economic Development Authority to facilitate the development of
the site located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an
ordinance authorizing the sale of City owned property located at
the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue to the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and set second
reading for September 21, 1999.
Background:
For well over a year the City/EDA has been working with Frauenshuh Companies on the
development of a medical office building and restaurant at the southwest corner of Highway 7
and Louisiana Avenue. Recently, the City Council approved the preliminary PUD for this
project. In addition, the City and Economic Development Authority have entered into a
development agreement with Frauenshuh Companies regarding the development of this site.
City charter and City policy require Planning Commission review of the sale of City owned land
and the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance which authorizes the sale.
On August 18 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed land sale in the context of the
proposed future use of the property and its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. Based on this
review the Planning Commission found that the sale of the property in question to the EDA, and
ultimately to the developer, is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council is now being requested to take the final steps to authorize the sale of this
property. The attached ordinance, which was drafted by the City attorney, authorizes the sale of
the property in question to the EDA. Per the aforementioned development agreement, the City
will convey the parcel to the EDA for a purchase price of one dollar. The EDA will then sell the
property to the developer for one dollar after certain conditions in the development agreement
have been met. In consideration of the one dollar purchase price, the developer will be bound by
the provisions of a “Participation Agreement” which will result in future payments by the
developer to the EDA relating in part to the future appreciated value of the property.
75
Second reading of the ordinance is proposed to occur on September 21. In addition, on this date
the EDA is scheduled to conduct a public hearing authorizing the sale of the property in question
to Frauenshuh Companies.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance
Site map
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
76
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of September 7, 1999
8a. 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 adopt a resolution approving Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving preliminary and final
plat with conditions outlined in the resolution
• Motion to adopt Second Reading of an ordinance to vacate
utility easements and trail easement.
Zoning: R-C, High Density Residential
Comprehensive Plan
Designation: RH, High Density Residential up to 75 units per acre
Background:
Silvercrest Properties, Inc. is requesting approvals for a second phase to their existing 45-unit
senior assisted living facility in the Park Commons area. This request is being continued from
the August 2, 1999 City Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council directed staff to
follow up on two issues: 1) to determine a method of ensuring that non-emergency fire and police
calls to the Silvercrest facilities would be reduced into the future; and 2) to determine the need
for a bike trail along the future north-south roadway in Park Commons, and whether additional
right of way would be required from the Silvercrest properties for this purpose.
On August 18, 1999 the Planning Commission considered the final plat for Silvercrest Addition
and recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. The Planning Commission had previously
recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, preliminary plat and easement
vacations. The City Council is being asked to consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment,
preliminary and final plat of Silvercrest Addition, and Second Reading of the easement
vacations.
Issues:
• How is it proposed that non-emergency calls to the senior facilities be reduced into the
future?
• Is a bike trail needed along the future north-south roadway, and is additional right of
way needed for this purpose?
77
• Is the final plat acceptable?
• Has the Comprehensive Plan Amendment been revised to remove the requirement that
50% of the future residential development on Lot 1 be all ages?
Issues Analysis:
How is it proposed that non-emergency calls to these senior facilities be reduced into the
future?
City staff met with the developer to discuss this issue, including Community Development, Fire,
and Police. Data from the Fire Department shows that the Parkwood Shores and Park Shores
facilities, and other similar facilities in the City such as Sholom Home and nursing homes,
account for a large proportion of the total emergency calls that City Fire and Police handle on an
annual basis. Staff and the developer discussed the developer’s proposal for reducing non-
emergency calls and several possible ways to ensure that calls are reduced into the future. The
developer’s proposal is to hire emergency medical technicians (emt’s) to be on staff, and to work
out an agreement with Hennepin County Medical Center to call them directly for ambulance
service. Silvercrest is also considering installing a pendant system in the senior high rise, a
method which has been very successful in the assisted living facility (where residents can
summon an on-staff nurse immediately through a pendant around their necks).
Based upon the discussions, staff is recommending that public safety and planning staff work
with Silvercrest management to agree on a plan to reduce non-emergency calls. It is proposed
that an agreement would be in place prior to the new assisted living expansion receiving a
Certificate of Occupancy or becoming operational. To ensure that the plan to reduce calls
remains in place into the future, one or more of the following methods would be employed:
1. A written agreement between the City and Silvercrest, either written into a Development
Agreement or by separate agreement
2. Tie the plan to the multi-family licensing program, i.e. if an inspection reveals the plan is
not being followed the annual license would not be renewed.
3. Explore the possiblity, in addition to one of the methods above, of some type of charge
for an extraordinary volume of emergency calls.
Within the next year, staff would also explore requiring the same type of internal plan for
addressing non-emergency calls for similar facilities city-wide.
City Fire and Police and the developer are in agreement with the above approach. Staff is
recommending a condition of approval which incorporates this language into the plat resolution.
Is a bike trail needed along the future north-south roadway, and is additional right of way
needed for this purpose?
Per the City Council’s direction, staff has explored the need and desirability for an off street
multi-use bike trail along the north-south roadway and potential right of way impacts.
78
Park Commons West Task Force recommendations: The Park Commons West Task Force’s
redevelopment goals are for an urban, walkable town center, with walkability being a priority.
The Task Force’s recommendations had included on-road bike lanes as part of the future north-
south road. An off-street multi-use bike trail is less consistent with the walkability goal and with
the urban character that is envisioned for this area. In addition, trail connections already exist
between 36th Street and Excelsior Boulevard through Wolfe Park and via bike trails which link
roads in Park Commons to Wolfe Park.
City staff asked SRF Consulting to study the need for an off-street bike trail along the future
north-south roadway, and whether additional right of way would need to be acquired from
Silvercrest on the east side for this purpose. SRF states in the attached memo that a bike trail
along the future north-south roadway is desirable and would provide a needed link between
Excelsior Boulevard and areas south, the general Park Commons area, and areas north and
northwesterly of 36th Street. The consultant states that an off street bike trail is preferable to an
on street bike trail, because on-road bike lanes cannot accommodate all types of users well such
as children and rollerbladers. SRF recommends a ten foot wide bituminous trail along the east
and north sides of the future north-south roadway, and that an additional ten feet of right of way
should be acquired from Silvercrest for this purpose.
If an off-street multi-use trial is deemed appropriate, staff has concerns about the safety of a
multi-use bike trail on the east side, due to the number of elderly residents currently walking on
the east side of the street to Byerly’s, etc. In response to a request by staff to study whether the
bicycle trail could be placed on the west side of the road instead, SRF agrees that the bike trail
could alternatively be placed on the west side of the road. In that case, a sidewalk would remain
on the east side of the road and no additional right of way would be required on the east side
from Silvercrest. Staff believes that a bike trail on the west side is preferable, to preserve
walkability and minimize conflicts on the east side.
Additional considerations should be given to this topic in the future, particularly if street-front
development is proposed for the west side.
Is the final plat acceptable?
The final plat document is consistent with the Preliminary Plat document that was reviewed on
August 2, 1999, with one exception. The name of the plat is proposed as Silvercrest Addition,
rather than Parkwood Addition, because the County would not accept the first name.
Trail easements for relocation of the existing east-west trail to the north of the Parkwood Shores
building and a possible future trail between Park Shores and Wayside House, as well as a road
easement for the future north-south roadway, are to be dedicated through separate easement
documents. No additional right of way is proposed to be acquired on the plat.
Several standard conditions are recommended as part of the final plat resolution.
79
Has the Comprehensive Plan Amendment been revised to remove the requirement that
50% of the future residential development on Lot 1 be all ages?
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment resolution has been revised, per the City Council’s
direction, to remove this requirement. There is no restriction on the required ages for the future
development of Lot 1.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the approved
Exhibits A through I, such documents incorporated by reference herein, and with the
standards outlined in the Redevelopment Plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
a. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures City’s
interests in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City.
b. Financial security, in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit, covering tree removal
and replacement, utility work, paving, curb and gutter, and repair/cleaning of public
streets after construction.
c. A Development Agreement shall be executed, or existing Development Agreement
amended, to address terms and conditions of development, including allowable Ordinance
modifications for redevelopment of Lot 1.
3. Prior to any site work or issuance of any building permits, the developer shall provide a
copy of the Watershed District permit to the City.
4. 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. No building permits shall be issued for the project until
evidence is provided to the City of recording of the final plat.
5. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, trail easement over lots 1 and 2
and road easement and trail easement over Lot 3 shall be recorded.
6. Vacation of trail easement, 10 foot utility easement, and 24 foot utility easement shall not
become effective until new easements are recorded.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall comply with the following:
a. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and trail
and road easements.
b. Construction plans of the enclosed walkway shall be submitted to and approved by
Public Works.
c. A hold harmless agreement shall be executed which releases the City from liability
for damages to the walkway as a result of needed utility work with the easement.
d. The parking agreement between lots 2 and 3 shall be amended to reflect the additional
stalls required for Lot 2. Other agreements between the properties shall be amended as
needed.
80
8. Modifications to ordinance requirements and parameters for future redevelopment of Lot
1 approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan are as noted in Resolution ____ adopting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
9. The property owner shall cooperate with the City regarding future construction of the
north-south roadway and agrees to work with the City regarding an additional trail
connection from Wolfe Park to the new roadway along the south property line of Lot 3.
10. If Lots 2 and 3 come under separate ownership, the owners shall execute a joint
maintenance agreement for the enclosed walkway.
11. The owner shall execute a snow removal and maintenance agreement with the City for the
relocated trail.
12. The existing trail may be removed on or after October 1, 1999. A new trail must be
installed and fully operational no later than May 1, 1999. If the new trail is not
operational by May 1, 1999 the developer shall cooperate with the Park and Recreation
Department to provide an alternate temporary trail connection.
13. Property owner shall work with staff to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the volume
of non-emergency fire and police calls to the 3633 and 3663 buildings. An agreement
shall be reached and a plan shall be in place prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy
on the assisted living expansion. The property owner agrees that one or more of the
following methods would be employed to ensure that calls are effectively reduced into the
future:
a. A written agreement between the City and Silvercrest, either written into a
Development Agreement or by separate agreement
b. Tie the plan to the multi-family licensing program, i.e. if an inspection
reveals the plan is not being followed the annual license would not be renewed.
c. Explore the possibility, in addition to one of the methods above, of some
type of charge for an extraordinary volume of emergency calls.
Attachments:
• Proposed Resolutions
• Proposed Ordinance
• Location Map
• Memorandum from SRF Consulting regarding need for bike trail
• Exhibit A, Preliminary Plat
• Exhibit B, Final Plat
• Exhibit C, Site Plan
• Exhibit D, Usable Open Space Plan
• Exhibit E, Demolition Site Plan
• Exhibit F, Landscape Plan
• Exhibit G, Grading and utility plan
• Exhibit H, Building Elevations
• Exhibit I, Walkway detail
• Floor Plans
Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
81
RESOLUTION NO. 99-101
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 1990 TO THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
AMENDMENT TO ADOPT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 1980-2000 was adopted by the City Council on March 5,
1984 and amended on April 1, 1991 as Comprehensive Plan 1990-2010, and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and
social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive
for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and
efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of
individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public
interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development
and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into
determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more
economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote
the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby
bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of
adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
82
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 1990-2010 on July 7, 1999 based on
statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the
interests of citizens and public agencies;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
Chapter V,.P., Redevelopment, Park Center Housing:
The Park Center Housing District is located within the Park Commons redevelopment area and
was established in 1997 to facilitate the development of the Parkwood Shores assisted living
housing project. A Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 7, 1999
for 3601, 3633, and 3663 Park Center Boulevard, which includes the existing 207-unit senior
high rise apartment, a total of 91 units of senior assisted living housing, and the future
redevelopment of the office property. 45 assisted living units were completed in 1998. Phase II
of 46 units are to be completed in 1999/2000. Redevelopment of the office property as high
density residential, which is anticipated within the next five to ten years (2005-2010), shall
conform to the following guidelines:
• Density shall be at or near 75 units per acre maximum.
• Floor Area Ratio may be a maximum equal to the Parkshores high rise (2.2 FAR)
• Height may be a maximum equal to the Parkshores high rise (142’).
• There shall be no reduction in the amount of existing usable open space on the lot.
• Any curb cut access on Park Center Boulevard shall be aligned with the existing median
break.
• The site design shall conform to Livable Communities principles outlined in Chapter R,
specifically including relationship to the public street, architectural interest at the pedestrian
level, and use of below ground structured parking.
• Architecture shall coordinate with Parkwood Shores and Parkshore Place.
• Good pedestrian/trail connections shall be provided.
The following modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements are approved as part of the
Redevelopment Plan for the assisted living and senior high rise properties only:
• Density increase to 70 units per acre.
• Reduction in required usable open space of 51%.
• Increase in Floor Area Ratio to 1.7.
• Reduction in building setbacks up to 72%.
• Building height for senior high rise of 142 feet.
• Setback reduction for surface parking lot to 20 feet.
83
• Setback reduction for structured parking to 10 feet.
• Reduction in required parking stalls of 15%.
• Reduced building to curb setback to seven feet.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this amendment to Chapter V.P.,
Redevelopment, Park Center Housing be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2010
approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on May 17, 1999 (Resolution No. 99-
66), and currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Attest:
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
84
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 99-101
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 1990 TO THE YEAR 2010 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
AMENDMENT TO ADOPT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
This resolution states that Chapter V.,P., Redevelopment, Park Center Housing shall be amended
to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for properties located at 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center
Boulevard for a 46-unit senior assisted living facility expansion and future redevelopment of the
office property.
This resolution shall take effect upon approval of the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: September 15, 1999
85
ORDINANCE NO. 2143-99
AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND TRAIL EASEMENTS
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the drainage, utility and trail easements proposed to be
vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the drainage, utility and
trail easements and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who
has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on July 21, 1999 as
directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that the proposed drainage, utility and trail easements are not needed for public
purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said proposed drainage utility and
trail easements be vacated.
Section 2. The following described drainage, utility and trail easements as now
dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
1. Drainage and utility easement along the former south line of Lot 1, Block 2 Park Center,
300 feet in length approximately
2. 24 foot storm sewer easement which crosses Lot 2, Block 2 Park Center
3. 14 foot trail easement which crosses Lot 2, Block 2 Park Center
All within the property in the attached legal description.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
86
Vacation of above easements shall not become effective until new drainage,
utility, and trail easements are recorded against the properties.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager City Attorney
87
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2143-99
AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND TRAIL EASEMENTS
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
This ordinance states that the following described drainage, utility and trail easements shall be
vacated:
1. Drainage and utility easement along the former south line of Lot 1, Block 2 Park
Center, 300 feet in length approximately
2. 24 foot storm sewer easement which crosses Lot 2, Block 2 Park Center
3. 14 foot trail easement which crosses Lot 2, Block 2 Park Center
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
Jeffrey W. Jacobs
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: September 15, 1999
88
RESOLUTION NO. 99-102
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
SILVERCREST ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Silvercrest Properties, Inc., owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be
platted as Silvercrest Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary 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 preliminary 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 preliminary and final plat of Silvercrest Addition are
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. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the approved
Exhibits A through I, such documents incorporated by reference herein, and with the
standards outlined in the Redevelopment Plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following
requirements:
1. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which
insures City’s interests in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City.
2. Financial security, in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit, covering
tree removal and replacement, utility work, paving, curb and gutter, and
repair/cleaning of public streets after construction.
89
3. A Development Agreement shall be executed, or existing Development
Agreement amended, to address terms and conditions of development, including
allowable Ordinance modifications for redevelopment of Lot 1. Mayor and City
Manager are authorized to execute this agreement.
D. Prior to any site work or issuance of any building permits, the developer shall meet the
following:
1. Provide a copy of Watershed District permit to the City.
2. Provide a tree replacement bond to cover the costs of tree removal and
replacement.
E. 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. No building permits shall be issued for the project until
evidence is provided to the City of recording of the final plat.
F. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, trail easement over lots 1 and 2
and road easement and trail easement over Lot 3 shall be recorded.
G. Vacation of trail easement, 10 foot utility easement, and 24 foot utility easement shall not
become effective until new easements are recorded.
H. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall comply with the following:
1. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the
final plat and road and trail easements.
2. Construction plans of the enclosed walkway shall be submitted to and
approved by Public Works.
3. A hold harmless agreement shall be executed which releases the City from
liability for damages to the walkway as a result of needed utility work with the
easement.
4. The parking agreement between lots 2 and 3 shall be amended to reflect
the additional stalls required for Lot 2. Other agreements between the properties
shall be amended as needed.
E. Modifications to ordinance requirements and parameters for future redevelopment of Lot
1 approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan are as noted in Resolution ____ adopting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
F. The property owner shall cooperate with the City regarding future construction of the
north-south roadway and agrees to work with the City regarding an additional trail
connection from Wolfe Park to the new roadway along the south property line of Lot 3.
G. If Lots 2 and 3 come under separate ownership, the owners shall execute a joint
maintenance agreement for the enclosed walkway.
H. The owner shall execute a snow removal and maintenance agreement with the City for the
relocated trail.
I. The existing trail may be removed on or after October 1, 1999. A new trail must be
installed and fully operational no later than May 1, 1999. If the new trail is not
operational by May 1, 1999 the developer shall cooperate with the Park and Recreation
Department to provide an alternate temporary trail connection.
90
J. Property owner shall work with staff to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the volume
of non-emergency fire and police calls to the 3633 and 3663 buildings. An agreement
shall be reached and a plan shall be in place prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy
on the assisted living expansion. The property owner agrees that one or more of the
following methods would be employed to ensure that calls are effectively reduced into the
future:
a. A written agreement between the City and Silvercrest, either written into a
Development Agreement or by separate agreement
b. Tie the plan to the multi-family licensing program, i.e. if an inspection
reveals the plan is not being followed the annual license would not be renewed.
c. Explore the possiblity, in addition to one of the methods above, of some
type of charge for an extraordinary volume of emergency calls.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
91
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8b
Meeting of September 7, 1999
8b. Resolution Approving the Preliminary Property Tax Levy and Budget for the
2000 Fiscal Year and Establishing the Dates and Times for the Public Hearing
Resolution approving the preliminary property tax levy and budget is required by
Truth in Taxation legislation. Information contained in the resolution will be used
in the individual tax notices prepared by the County in advance of the hearing dates.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the resolution which establishes the
preliminary tax levy and budget for 2000 and sets the hearing
dates and times.
Background:
The Mayor and City Council received the 2000 Proposed Budget document in August and an
overview was provided at the Council Study Session on August 23th.
By law, the City Council must approve a preliminary tax levy and budget for 2000 as well as
establish the hearing dates for the public hearing on the tax levy and budget. This information
will appear on the parcel specific tax notices mailed to property owners in November. Council
approval of the preliminary levy and budget must occur on or before September 15th of each
year. Final action of the levy and 2000 budget will not occur until the second Council meeting in
December.
The final levy approved by the Council in December may not exceed the preliminary levy -
which is specified in the resolution in this action.
Analysis:
Hearing Dates
The 1998 State Legislature changed the rules and now cities may hold their hearing as part of a
regular Council meeting. The hearing date for the tax levy and 2000 budget will be held as part
of the Council’s first regular meeting in December - on the 6th. It is recommended that the
meeting time remain at 7:30 p.m. The following Monday, December 13th will be set aside as a
continuation date if one is necessary.
92
Proposed Tax Levy
As detailed in the 2000 Proposed Budget document, a total levy of $12,573,516 is proposed for
next year. This represents an increase of 1.6% over the 1999 levy and provides for an additional
$199,629 to help support the operations of the General Fund, Parks and Recreation operations
and Parks Improvements. A portion of the levy is also dedicated to the retirement of G.O.
bonded debt. The proposed levy amount is at the Legislature-imposed levy limit.
The amount specified in the resolution is net of the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid
(HACA). For the last several years, the State has required the levy be approved “net of HACA.”
A comparison of the amount for 1999 compared to the current year is shown below:
Please note that the percentage increase in the levy - as reported to the County, net of HACA -
went to 1.63%, from 1.61%. This is due to a slightly smaller increase in HACA state-aid.
Attachments:
• Resolution
Prepared By: John Brooks, Director of Finance
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
1999/2000 Proposed
vs. 1998/99
Levy 1998/99 1999/2000 $%
General Fund 9,647,830$ $9,928,346 $280,516 2.91%
Parks & Recreation 2,397,175 2,466,862 69,687 2.91%
Parks Improvement 66,906 68,842 1,936 2.89%
G.O. Debt 261,976 109,466 -152,510 -58.22%
Gross Levy 12,373,887$ $12,573,516 $199,629 1.61%
1999/2000 Proposed
vs. 1998/99
1998/99 1999/2000 $%
Gross Levy 12,373,887$ $12,573,516 $199,629 1.61%
Less:
HACA (2,852,708) (2,897,551) -44,843 1.57%
Levy as Reported to
the County 9,521,179$ $9,675,965 $154,786 1.63%
93
RESOLUTION NO. 99-103
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 1999 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2000
AND APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2000
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a proposed property tax
levy and a preliminary budget as well as dates for the initial and continuation public hearings on
the proposed levy and budget on or before September 15th of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that the preliminary budget for 2000 shall be as follows:
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Revenues:
General Property Taxes 9,679,465
Business License Permits 331,000
Non-Business License Permits 1,053,600
Intergovernmental 6,565,632
Charges for Services 2,047,762
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 379,000
Enterprise 9,234,903
Special Assessments 105,621
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,785,040
Refunds and Reimbursements 4,905,872
Transfers In 2,068,979
Total Revenues 38,156,874
Fund Balance / Reserves-Jan 1 37,876,160
Total Available 76,033,034$
94
and as supported by the detailed proposed budget document; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the dates for the public hearing on the proposed tax levy
and budget is set for Monday December 6, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, and should a continuation hearing be required, that the date for the continuation hearing
will be Monday, December 13, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 1999, collectible in 2000 upon
the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota
and to the Local Government Aids/Analysis Division, Department of Revenue, State of
Minnesota as required by law.
REQUIREMENTS
Appropriations:
Personal Services 18,848,396
Supplies, services and other charges 18,075,690
Capital Outlay 2,573,793
Transfers Out 2,068,979
Total Appropriations 41,566,858
Fund Balance / Reserves-Dec 31 34,466,176
Total Requirements 76,033,034$
General Fund 7,620,277$
Parks & Recreation Fund 1,893,384
Parks Improvement Fund 52,838
G.O. Debt Service 109,466
Total 9,675,965$
95
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 8, 1998
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
96
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of September 7, 1999
8c. Resolution authorizing a levy certification tax rate increase for the 1999
tax levy, collectible in 2000
This report considers a tax rate increase for the 1999 levy that will result in an
increase over the base line tax rate.
Recommended
Acton:
Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing a Levy
Certification Tax Rate Increase for the 1999 Tax Levy,
collectible in 2000.
BACKGROUND:
The 1999 Minnesota Legislature passed a new law requiring all cities over 500 population and all
counties to adopt a resolution at a public hearing if its levy for the upcoming year will result in an
increase over the baseline tax rate as calculated in Minnesota Statutes Section 275.078.
ANALYSIS:
Under the law, the county auditor is required to provide information to affected cities and the
county board that will allow the local government to calculate what its tax rate would be in the
coming year if the levy was held constant. Essentially, a baseline tax rate is computed based on
the prior year’s levy and the current year tax base.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: John Brooks, Interim Finance Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
97
RESOLUTION NO. 99-104
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LEVY
CERTIFICATION TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE 1999 TAX LEVY,
COLLECTIBLE IN 2000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the county auditor is authorized to fix a property tax
rate for taxes payable in the year 2000 that is higher than the tax rate calculated pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.078.
Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the city from certifying a final levy that will result
in no tax rate increase or a tax rte decrease.
The city clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county
auditor of Hennepin county, Minnesota.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
98
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
8d.* Traffic Study No. 544: Westwood Lutheran Church Parking Restrictions on
Cedar Lake Road at its Westerly Driveway Exit.
This report considers a request from Westwood Lutheran Church to restrict parking
30 feet on the east and west sides of it’s westerly parking lot exit on Cedar Lake
Road.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the change in
parking restrictions on Cedar Lake Road to no parking within 30
feet on the east and west sides of Westwood Lutheran Church’s
westerly parking lot exit.
Background: The City received a request from Westwood Lutheran Church asking that the City
consider restricting parking on Cedar Lake Road on both the east and west sides of their westerly
parking lot exit. The request is to provide improved visibility and easier turning movements as
two (2) lanes of traffic exit this driveway. This request has no impact on area residents.
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 no
parking signs may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
3. Defer pending addition study.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
99
RESOLUTION NO. 99-105
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING "NO PARKING”
WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE WESTERLY DRIVEWAY EXIT
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 544
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. “No Parking” within 30 feet on the east and west sides of Westwood Lutheran Church’s
westerly parking lot exit.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
100
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
8e.* Traffic Study No. 545: Property/Business Owner Request to Eliminate
Parking Restrictions in Front of 4015 Yosemite Avenue South.
This report considers a request from the property owner at 4015 Yosemite Avenue
south to remove the existing parking restrictions.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding Resolution
No. 84-110 and authorizing the elimination of parking
restrictions in front of 4015 Yosemite Avenue South.
Background: The City received a request from the property/business owner at 4015 Yosemite
Avenue South to remove the existing parking restrictions of “No Parking from 1 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The existing parking restrictions were initiated in 1984 due to the crowds at the American
Legion. The property at 4015 Yosemite Avenue South has been sold and now functions as a
beauty salon. The property change should not affect other property owners or businesses in the
immediate area.
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 removal of the
existing parking restrictions and rescinding Resolution No. 84-110 may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
3. Defer pending additional study.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
101
RESOLUTION NO. 99-106
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ELIMINATION
OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN FRONT OF
4015 YOSEMITE AVENUE SOUTH AND
RECINDING RESOLUTION NO. 84-110
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 545
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are no longer 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 remove the following
controls:
1. Rescind Resolution No. 84-110 for the existing parking restriction at 4015 Yosemite
Avenue South.
2. Remove existing parking signs which restrict on street parking from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
102
Item # 9a*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes - February 17, 1999
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin and Judith Moore
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Guest: Julie Sweitzer (attending to learn more about the commission so she can determine if she
wishes to apply for commission membership)
Approval of Meeting Notes
Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Marc Berg to accept the January meeting notes. Motion
passed unanimously.
Herb Isbin asked Martha McDonell to check with the City Clerk to determine 1) whether it’s
possible for the commission to have a quorum with its current number of members, 2) whether
members can take formal action if there is no quorum, and 3) whether the meeting report should
be termed “minutes” or “meeting notes.”
Reports
Laurel Higgins distributed a copy of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) brochure from
the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.
Herb Isbin reported on a meeting about the City’s Affirmative Action Plan that he and Martha
McDonell had with City Manager Charlie Meyer and Human Resources Director Nancy
Gohman. Isbin said he was impressed with the City’s commitment to diversifying its staff. Isbin
also noted that there has been only one allegation of discrimination filed against the City in the
last five years. (This was an allegation of sexual discrimination in the Police Department. The
problem behavior has ceased; however, the complainant still intends to pursue legal action.)
Isbin reported that Meyer or Gohman are willing to come to a future Human Rights Commission
meeting to discuss the City’s affirmative action efforts.
Martha McDonell noted that the City is required to report every two years to the Federal
government the number of women and minorities it employs. McDonell added that--although
the City’s Affirmative Action Plan has not been updated--there is a commitment by management
to diversity. McDonell noted the efforts of the Police and Fire Departments to diversify its work
force by implementing new efforts such as the Paid-on-Call Firefighter Program and Police
Cadet Program. These recruitment efforts have been successful in attracting a more diverse
workforce to St. Louis Park. The greater problem now is retention. Because St. Louis Park’s
103
workforce is small, there are fewer promotional opportunities and many candidates leave to
pursue promotions in larger cities.
Isbin then reported that he called the Minnesota Cultural Diversity Center (MCDC) to learn
which companies are headquartered in St. Louis Park and whether they are members of MCDC.
Isbin added that the executive director of MCDC offered to come speak to the commission.
Isbin reported that he met with Eileen Hanson, the librarian at the St. Louis Park branch of the
Hennepin County library. He noted that the library’s story hour features a diverse group of
storytellers as well as a reading list for learning more about various cultures. Marc Berg
suggested inviting the person who assembles the reading list to speak to the commission at some
future date.
McDonell reported on her efforts to recruit new commission members. Nine individuals have
requested information and application forms. McDonell added that the April-May issue of the
City newsletter Park Perspective will have information on commission vacancies. McDonell will
also contact Sarah Krzesowiak, volunteer coordinator with the School District, to see if
Krzesowiak can publicize the commission’s student vacancy.
McDonell then distributed a copy of the Bias/Hate Crimes Report from the St. Louis Park Police
Department.
Judith Moore reported that a Community Circle meeting was held in January. One of the
interesting issues, according to Moore, is that the rate of change is much faster than in previous
years.
Marc Berg and Laurel Higgins reported that they will be unable to attend the March 17 meeting.
Members agreed to move the meeting to March 24.
Old Business
1998 Report to the City Council: Laurel Higgins said she would write the report to the City
Council highlighting the commission’s accomplishments in 1998. Higgins intends to highlight
these accomplishments: producing the brochure, initiating the phone line, giving out the Human
Rights Award, creating the Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan, and participating in the discussion
concerning the School District’s diversity plan.
Strategic Action Plan Three: School Support
School District Strategic Plan: Judith Moore reported that she has attended two meetings of
the task force working on Action Plan Five of the School District’s Strategic Plan, and she feels
more positive about the process. The task force is meeting each Tuesday from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
and plans to have its work done by May.
Moore noted that the task force had difficulty coming to a consensus on the meaning of its
mission. The task force determined that the issue centered on concerns about negative comments
being made about the St. Louis Park schools compared to surrounding suburban districts. The
104
group agreed to conduct an opinion survey to learn specifically what the negative views are about
and what these perceptions are based upon (i.e. hearsay versus personal experience). With the
survey data in hand, the group plans to recommend a public relations effort aimed at addressing
these perceptions. Laurel Higgins offered to help with the project. Moore suggested that the
Commission members help with the phone survey and suggest questions to ask. If Moore can
obtain an advance draft of the questions, she will send them to Martha McDonell so the questions
can be mailed to commissioners for their suggestions.
1999 Work Plan: Laurel Higgins asked members to reassess the Commission’s 1999 Work
Plan. Given the number of vacancies on the Commission, Higgins said it may not be realistic to
assume all items on the work plan can be addressed in 1999.
Members agreed that the work plan should include supporting the School District’s strategic
planning process. Judith Moore offered to continue to working on this.
Moore said she felt it’s important for commission members to attend School Board meetings, as
well. Laurel Higgins offered to obtain agendas and try to attend meetings that seemed relevant to
human rights concerns. Commission members also agreed to leave the Human Mosaic Project
and student community service projects on the 1999 work plan.
Commission members also agreed that the 1999 Work Plan should continue to include the phone
line. Martha McDonell said that the Human Rights phone line now rings on her desk. McDonell
picks up calls during the day; after hours, callers can leave messages. Members agreed that the
basic content of the phone message should remain unchanged; however, minor revisions could be
made. Martha will mail out a script and members can look it over.
Marc Berg reported that there was one call to the phone line. The call concerned a
landlord/tenant issue rather than a discrimination issue. However, Berg felt that following up on
this call was a valid role for the commission. He said that providing a sympathetic ear and
referring callers to other resources (in this case, the Tenant Union and West Suburban Mediation
Center) was an important role for the commission. As a form of basic market research,
McDonell will ask callers how they knew about the phone line.
After returning to the discussion of the work plan, members agreed that many of the tasks fit
under the broad description of educating citizens about their rights and what constitutes a human
rights violation. Commission members said these goals might be accomplished via brochures,
cable programs, presentations to organizations, etc. What is needed is some kind of protocol to
ensure these efforts are accomplishing the Commission’s education function. Marc Berg agreed
to work on this issue with Herb Isbin. Herb Isbin volunteered to work on redrafting the
commission’s brochure. Laurel Higgins asked the commission to consider whether the
commission might do some kind of publication that uses children’s drawings.
Commission members agreed to move the Human Rights Award and the Martin Luther King day
event/speaker projects to the second half of the year. Commission members agreed to postpone
105
efforts to create cable television programs and ask other St. Louis Park entities to include human
rights information in their materials.
Herb Isbin offered to work on updating the Human Rights Commission’s bylaws. Martha
McDonell agreed to handle member recruitment and new member orientation.
Moved by Judith Moore and second by Marc Berg to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
106
Item # 9b*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – June 9, 1999
First Floor Community Room – City Hall
Present
Commission members: Abby Bennett, Marc Berg, Laurel Higgins, Herb Isbin, Betty Merritt,
Judith Moore, and Chris Smith.
Staff: Martha McDonell, Staff Liaison and Kim Olson, Recording Secretary
Commissioners John Archbold, Herb Isbin, and David Lee were absent.
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Marc Berg and seconded by Betty Merritt to approve the May minutes with the
following changes.
Include Judith Moore’s absence in the minutes.
Include the change of the meeting date for the next agenda.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda of the night’s meeting was approved with the following correction.
Add the discussion of the Human Rights Commission brochure.
Reports
Martha McDonell reported that subcommittee meetings do not have to be posted unless there is a
quorum or more. Judith Moore felt that there was reason for concern. Chris Smith said the open
meeting applies to subcommittees also. It includes a quorum of any group Smith suggested that
the committee refrain from using the word subcommittee, using instead work group. Laurel
Higgins asked that the minutes reflect that.
McDonell distributed that Chapter 363 books and newspaper letter.
Strategic Action Plan One: Receiving, Responding, and Reporting calls
Call Report
Martha McDonell reported that no calls had come in on the Human Rights Commission
phoneline.
107
Phone Response Protocal
Chris Smith presented the Commission with a draft of the phone response protocal. After each
Commission member had read the draft, a discussion began with Marc Berg asking McDonell if
the proposed protocal was feasibile for staff. McDonell replied that staff would be able to carry
out all statements that were in the draft. Laurel Higgins suggested that the word “check” in the
third paragraph should be changed to monitor.
McDonell clarified the improvements that have been made on the phone line and how she
answers the Human Rights Commission line.
Marc Berg asked if it is necessary to call once each day if there is no answer. Judith stated that
she tries until she reaches someone. It was stated that it would not be necessary if a message was
left.
Berg asked for clarification on the meaning of the second sentence on the first full paragraph on
the second page. Chris Smith replied that it means a commissioner is not responsible for
checking to see if the caller followed up on anything after talking to a Commissioner.
McDonell asked if any Commissioner were against having their turn to respond to calls. Judith
Moore asked if she could be placed early on the list to have her turn.
Laurel Higgins brought attention to the third to last bottom paragraph . She felt the time for
materials to be sent out should be changed to two to three days instead of a week. She referred to
a packet that had been put together previously. Martha McDonell stated the packet was currently
missing. Higgins suggested that it be put together again. Judith Moore felt everyone should be
supplied with the packet.
Higgins asked what the records retention policy is for the Commission. McDonell responded
that there is not one. All information is entered into the minutes which are considered official
records. McDonell suggested that they be entered into the year end report.
McDonell brought attention to the third paragraph of the second page where it states that the
commissioner should encourage the caller to contatct the police if they have been the victim of a
crime. McDonell felt that more emphasis should be placed on contacting the police and it should
be worded to say that the commissioner should direct the caller to contact the police. McDonell
then commended Chris Smith on a job well done.
Marc Berg inquired if everyone felt that the new procedures fulfilled the need of defining what to
do when calls came in. Judith Moore felt that they did, with an updated referral list.
Guidelines for responding to discrimination incidents
Martha McDonell asked for clarification on this item. She asked if it would be similar to the
Hate Crime Response Internal guidelines for the Commission and the phone line procedures just
written.
108
Laurel Higgins suggested using the Hate Crime Response Plan as an outline and to make it
similar to that.
Judith Moore felt that the phone line procedures, Hate Crime Response Plan, and the referral list
are efficient, but if needed they can incorporate discrimination. She suggested that in the
response plan, a part should be added that goes further on discrimination.
Martha McDonell asked how the Commission felt on this topic. Judith Moore offered to do
some background checking and research regarding this topic.
Strategic Action Plan Two: Public Awareness campaign
Update on Kosovo Discussion Panel
Marc Berg passed out notes and a copy of the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
that he found interesting.
Berg announced that Eric Black of the Star Tribune would be moderating. He also stated that the
commons area of the Lutheran Reformtion church is where the dicussion would take place.
Judith Moore felt it would be hard to get people to attend the discussion.
Berg suggested that a small work group meet to design and distribute the flyer. He felt that
formal invitations should be sent to the speakers along with a letter about St. Louis Park.
Laurel Higgins stated that a press release be drawn up and given to the Star Tribune and the Sun
Sailor. Marc Berg suggested that also be done in the work group and emphasized the it would
need to be done very soon.
Judith Moore suggested trying to advertise the event on public radio. Higgins suggested
contacting the local television news stations.
Marc Berg stated that it is important to get feedback from those attending the discussion. He
inquired if it would be too much to have the public respond to a questionaire. McDonell felt that
was a good idea. Moore felt they should be given an opportunity to fill out a questionaire.
Laurel Higgins inquired on what kind of questions would be included in the questionaire. After
some discussion, some questions were what could be improved, issues for future discussions,
why the interest in this topic and how it came about, and a prompt for suggestions.
McDonell suggested calling the City Council to verify that they had received and had time to
read the memorandum that was given to them. Berg stated that he would contact the mayor and
his ward councilmember. Higgins suggested that the Council be invited to the panel discussion.
109
Betty Merritt wanted to make a point of Marc Berg’s commitment to organizing this panel
discussion.
Judith Moore stated that she felt this discussion was a bit of an experiment but it would valuable
learning experience.
McDonell suggested that the present commission members contact the absent commissioner to
give them an update on the project and to let them know the things remaining that need to be
done.
Laurel Higgins asked how the flyer would be printed once the draft was done. McDonell replied
that the City’s print shop should be able to get it done.
Judith Moore suggested that a list of locations to send the flyers to should be made up.
McDonell suggested that churches, services, schools, and neighborhood associations would be
good places to target.
Laurel Higgins inquired as to how the set up for the discussion would be done. Berg stated he
would look into it. Higgins then asked about refreshments. McDonell said that she would
provide them.
Strategic Action Plan Three: School Support
Judith Moore explained how groups were divided for work on each strategy and its subdivisions.
She stated the three major ideas her group had worked on. They included tracking changes,
hiring teachers of ethnic backgrounds, and a student center to be used as a resource center for
issues of diversity with a multicultural resource person.
Moore stated that her part in the strategic planning was done. The plans move forward to the
Central Planners and then finally to the School Board. She warned the other Commissioners that
the plan may not look like the original version when the project is finally completed. She felt
that there would be reason to be upset if not of the human rights ideas made it through to the end.
Old Business
Laural Higgins inquired on the last time the by-laws had been reviewed Higgins asked if anyone
was interested in looking at them. Abby Bennett volunteered to look at the by-laws.
Agenda for Next Meeting
It was clarified that the date of the next meeting would be July 21. Items to be included in the
next agenda were as follows: Human Rights Commission brochure, referral list and response
packet, calendar set up for the year 2000, review of the first draft of the by-laws, and a review of
the Kosovo forum.
Adjournment
110
It was moved by Judith Moore, seconded by Marc Berg, to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
111
Item # 9c*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 14, 1999
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg
and Shone Row.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Walter Hartman
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Harmening, Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson,
Nancy Sells, Cindy Stromberg and Paula Jordan.
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of June 9, 1999
Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the minutes of June 9, 1999.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion and the motion passed on
a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Row
in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business:
Tom Harmening introduced Michele Schnitker, the new Housing Supervisor and
Paula Jordan the new Housing Secretary. Mr. Harmening informed the board that
Ms. Schnitker will be taking over the Housing Authority meetings starting in
August. Ms. Jordan will be filling Nancy Sells' position of taking the minutes of
the meetings along with providing support for the Housing Staff.
112
a. Election of Officers
Commissioner Courtney nominated Commissioner Gavzy as Chairperson.
Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. Motion approved 3-0 by
Commissioners Row, Courtney and Gothberg.
Commissioner Gothberg nominated Commissioner Courtney as Vice-
Chairperson. Commissioner Gavzy seconded the motion. Motion
passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Courtney and Gothberg
voting in favor.
Commissioner Gothberg nominated Shone Row as Secretary. Commissioner
Courtney seconded the motion. Motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with
Commissioner Gavzy, Courtney and Gothberg voting in favor.
b. Housing Quality Standards Inspection Report.
Michele Schnitker reviewed the report.
Proposal was made to enter into a contract between the Housing Authority and
Tracy Olson, who is currently the case manager for the Trails program, to do
the Housing Quality Inspections for Section 8 program. Ms. Olson has worked
with the TRAILS program for five years and would be a good candidate for
this work. Staff is committed to training her, and she is qualified for this work.
The inspections would be done on weekends, evenings and over noon hours at
a cost of $20 per inspection with approximately 300 inspections per year.
Total cost would be $6,000. Since we have set aside $8,500 in the budget to
fund a quarter time position to complete Section 8 inspections, contracting
would result in a savings of $2,500.
Ms. Schnitker reported that Sue Wiseman will be reclassified to Public
Housing Specialist. She would then start working with Sharon Anderson in
administrating the Public Housing Program. Ms. Wiseman would like to
remain at her part time status.
Administration of the Section 8 Voucher Program would then be transferred to
Cindy Stromberg. She would then be administering both the Certificate and
Voucher
programs.
Commissioner Gavzy agreed with the reorganization proposal, however, his
concern was that Ms. Olson's background is not in building inspections.
113
Ms. Schnitker stated that she has every confidence in Ms. Olson since she has
accompanied Sue Wiseman on several inspections and has been studying the
the HUD manuals. HUD inspections are not as detailed as typical building
inspections. Other alternatives have been explored. The range to contract
an inspector, who are now in short supply, is from $40 to $100 per inspection.
Ms. Stromberg explained that the Federal Standards are very broad and that the
City Inspectors along with the Fire Department are always available to answer
any technical concerns that may arise. Ms. Stromberg also conductsquality
control inspections on 5% of the original inspections as follow up. Ms.
Schnitker feels that Ms. Olson will be ready to complete inspections in a month
or so.
Commissioner Gothberg was pleased that a woman would fill a role
traditionally filled by a male.
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Housing Authority authorize the
Chairperson and the Executive Director to enter into a contract with
Tracy Olson to perform Section 8 Program inspections in accordance with
HUD Housing Quality Standards (HQS). Ms. Courtney seconded the motion.
The motion was passed on a 4-0 vote with Commissioners, Courtney, Gavzy,
Row and Gothberg in favor.
c. CIAP
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the report.
Commissioner Gavzy asked to refresh the board on what was in the contract in
terms of physical improvements.
Sharon Anderson indicated that there were repairs needed in 35 of the 37 single
family homes. These items ranged from new cabinets, concrete work, and
roofs, to drainage problems in front of three houses. At Hamilton House the
main items are zone valves to the heating units; these valves are no longer being
made so repairs have been difficult. The new sump pump in the elevator is also
going to be completed. Many of the repairs are small items and run from 3-4
items in some houses to 10-20 in others.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired about the possibility of awarding the base
contract and then awarding the smoke detector contract alternate later, or if
the contract has to be awarded all at once. If the contractor knows that he will
get the smoke detector contract alternative, he may be more likely to give a
lower bid.
Ms.Anderson replied that former CIAP contract documents spelled out
114
everything including the alternate.
Mr. Harmening inquired as to what the time frame was in bid specifications for
approving the bids. Ms. Anderson indicated she thought it was 30 days.
Commissioner Gavzy questioned the recommendation of using the Section
23 bond proceeds as opposed to using the Public Housing reserves.
Ms. Schnitker replied that the Section 23 bond proceeds were originally set
aside for maintenance improvements and that this would be consistent as to
what HUD had specified as priority use of funds.
Commissioner Gavzy's understanding was that Section 23 bond proceeds
actually had a wider scope of what the funds could be used for. For instance,
the Public Housing reserves must be expended on Public Housing only. It
would make sense to use the Public Housing reserves rather than the Section 23
bond proceeds which could be used for other things.
Ms. Anderson indicated that the board could make that decision, because the
reserves are so high. Staff thought the HUD approval letter urged that the
highest priority for the Section 23 bond funds was for maintenance issues;
smoke detectors were specifically mentioned.
Commissioner Courtney inquired as to why the bids were so high compared
to what the architect had submitted.
Ms Anderson replied that the construction field is experiencing a labor shortage
and that the time of the year and the type of projects are the factors influencing
the bids. There are so many sites that need repairs and smaller projects are not
as attractive to the contractors.
Commissioner Gavzy's concern with PHAS inspections was that they were
over the top on incidental repairs incurring a lot of expense. It may cause
a low impact on our PHAS score as there seems to be some unknown factors
to deal with. Using the Section 23 funds for this project would be more in
his favor.
Commissioner Gothberg was comfortable doing all the projects using
Public Housing reserves to implement this project and could see no
benefit in waiting as the costs will only increase over time.
Commissioner Courtney moved to award the base bid contract to
Flag Builders and the smoke detector alternate bid to Flag Builders
using Public Housing reserves.
115
A motion was seconded by Commissioner Gothberg and was passed on
a vote of 4-0. Commissioners Courtney, Row, Gavzy and Gothberg
voted in favor.
Ms. Schnitker asked whether or not they should negotiate with Flag
builders on a couple of items so that we could do the asphalt project.
Commissioner Gavzy felt that we may as well do both the base bid plus
the smoke detectors and the asphalt.
Commissioner Courtney amended her motion to include awarding
the asphalt bid to ACI Asphalt.
Commissioner Gothberg accepted the amendment. The motion was
accepted and passed by a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Row,
Courtney, Gothberg and Gavzy voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
7
8 a. Claims List No 99-7
Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of Claims list 99-7 as amended
in the amount of $238,218.83. Commissioner Row seconded the motion,
and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney,
Gavzy, Row and Gothberg voting in favor.
b. Housing Quality Standards Inspections Report
Ms. Schnitker indicated that the list under communication opening for Housing
Program Coordinator has closed and that a decision will be made to fill the
vacancy by the end of August.
c. Communications
Tom Harmening reported on the Home Renewal Program which has
shown considerable progress.
The first Home Renewal on Blackstone just sold at $170,000. The
property on Georgia sold to the builder last week and the property on
Rhode Island will close next week. The Jersey property has closed
and the demo will occur in a month or so. The proposal to the builder
will go out in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Harmening said that we
are looking for more properties to acquire for this program.
Staff is also looking for another Habitat property. There was another
116
site off Highway 100 and Minnetonka Blvd, but the seller is no longer
interested in selling.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired as to what was preventing the stepping
up of the Habitat or Home Renewal.
Mr. Harmening replied that due to the workload, it has not been
possible to focus the time needed for the program. Ms. Yvette Quarfot,
who is the former Housing Coordinator, has been helping out a couple
of days a week with housing related issues until the new Housing Program
Coordinator's position can be filled. Secondly, we do not have that
many properties that fall into that criteria. When we find a property
there are so many obstacles, such as land holding, that it makes it difficult
to acquire. Mr. Harmening's goal is to step up this program considerably
now that the staff is coming up to speed. He would like to complete five
(5) Home Renewals per year.
e. Fire
Sharon Anderson provided an update on the fire on Jersey Ave., a single
family home. She was at the house today, July 14th, and the work is going
very well. Work should be completed by the end of the week.
8. Action Plan Update
Commissioner Gavzy reported that the plan is now over one year old and
needs to be updated.
9. Other
Sharon Anderson reported that the TRAILS Program has been nominated
for an award. The "Building a Better Tomorrow" award is given for the
best 1999 practices at the Technical Assistance Symposium held in Kansas
City, July 20-25th. This award is given by HUD. The TRAILS program
was nominated by Jerry Pateyuk, who is a local HUD official.
10. Adjournment
Commissioner Gavzy moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Row, Gavzy and Gothberg
voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted
117
_________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
118
Item # 9d*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 4, 1999 -- 7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM - 1ST FLOOR
CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Dennis Morris,
Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, and Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 21, 1999
Mr. Carver moved approval of the minutes of July 21, 1999 and the motion passed on a
vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Morris and Velick voting in favor.
3. Public Hearing - None
4. Old Business:
A. Case No. 99-15-S - Final Plat approval for Silvercrest Addition
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a brief summary of the staff report.
She stated that, in terms of timing of the trail, it is anticipated that if all approvals
proceed, development of the assisted living expansion would start in October.
The existing trail would become unusable at that time and the new trail would be
open and operational by May 1, 2000. In conclusion, Ms. Peterson stated that
staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to the conditions outlined in
the staff report
Chair Morris stated that Ms. Peterson mentioned in her presentation that the
Planning Commission had discussed vacating one of the easements, but he does
not believe they passed a resolution vacating it and asked if Council is going to
encompass that vacation with the others. Ms. Peterson stated that is correct.
119
Chair Morris stated that the developer is present to answer questions.
Mr. Carver moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
final plat, subject to conditions as recommended by staff and the motion passed on
a vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Morris and Timian voting in favor.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 99-12-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a brief summary of the staff
report and reviewed the proposed amendments to address various issues
identified. Ms. Erickson stated that staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments and forward them
to the City Council for public hearing and Council action.
The Planning Commission reviewed the analysis and proposed language changes
to each section in the staff report.
I. Accessory Buildings
Ms. Erickson reviewed the proposed language changes which include redefining
the definition of building height.
Chair Morris asked what the difference is between a low and high slope and at
what point of pitch does it pass that definition.
Ms. Erickson stated that anything that exceeds a 2.12 pitch is a high slope.
Ms. Erickson described setbacks and location of accessory buildings.
Ms. Velick asked for clarification of the residential complaint.
A discussion followed and Ms. Erickson illustrated on the board the locations of
setbacks and accessory buildings.
Mr. Carver recommended changing the following language: Number 7a change
the language to read from “no accessory building which is not” to “no accessory
building except a garage”; Top of page 2, roof low-sloped, change to read “roof
slopes to a maximum of 2.12 pitch”. Mr. Carver questioned if the language
“horizontal distance” is technically correct and recommended changing to to “run”
and using a diagram to demonstrate.
120
Ms. Erickson stated that she would consult the Department of Inspections
regarding which language is technically correct.
II. Procedures for Administering Some Provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance
Certificate of Occupancy
Ms. Erickson stated that all the language in this section is covered in Section 15 of
the Municipal Code and recommended deleting the language from the Zoning
Ordinance.
Public Hearings
Ms. Erickson indicated that all public hearings would be changed to be held at the
Planning Commission meetings instead of City Council.
Variance Limitations
Ms. Erickson stated that the City Council would act as the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BOZA) for a variance request made in conjunction with CUP and PUD
applications and the public hearings would be at Planning Commission as well.
Chair Morris asked for information on what criteria BOZA uses in making their
decisions.
Ms. Erickson stated that the variance criteria are included in the zoning ordinance.
She said that Page 12 of the staff report, item E lists the seven conditions that
must be met for granting a variance.
A discussion followed on clarification of which variance applications that the
Planning Commission would consider and the procedures and criteria used for
granting a variance. Ms. Erickson stated that the Planning Commission would
receive guidelines for review and making recommendations on variances. She
stated that a subdivision category would be added in the future.
Ms. Velick asked for clarification of how the changes affected the existing process
for granting of a variance.
Ms. Erickson described the 60 Day Rule and noted that staff is intending to use a
45 day cycle to comply with the 60 Day Rule.
121
Procedures for Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Ms. Erickson explained the addition of language for Comprehensive Plan
amendments and the proposal that a public hearing be held only at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Chair Morris asked staff to clarify the last strike-out and new addition in the
purpose of intent section on page 18. He asked if a question of consistency exists,
does that mean that the Commission needs to make a finding.
Ms. Erickson stated that according to State Statute from the date that our
Comprehensive Plan is adopted by Met Council, we have nine months to bring
the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the Comp Plan. Staff is beginning
this process of bringing ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission
however they can not bring some items until the Comp Plan is adopted by Met
Council.
Chair Morris questioned the word “guiding” on Page 18, A.1 and suggested
correction to this sentence may be necessary.
Ms. Erickson stated that the owner of the property must be the applicant.
Mr. Carver recommended that the language in A.1 be changed to read “owners of
the affected property”. He also suggested inclusion of the word “map” under the
proposed changes for Purpose and Intent on Page 18.
III. Usable Open Space
Ms. Erickson presented a summary of how useable open space has been enforced
over time and the purpose of requiring usable open space. Staff is proposing
language to separate the land uses of multiple-family and cluster housing to allow
each use to reduce the amount of usable open space by one half if they dedicate
public park land as part of their development.
Ms. Velick questioned how the tenants would feel about having open park space
in their planned development.
Ms. Erickson stated that this is already required in the subdivision ordinance.
Ms. Velick inquired how the Victoria Ponds development is affected by this.
Ms. Erickson stated the Victoria Ponds development came in before this
dedication requirement.
122
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the Victoria Ponds development and
how these proposed changes would have impacted that project. Ms. Erickson said
they wo uld have been required to dedicate 20% of the land area which would have
resulted in fewer units.
Ms. Erickson referred to page 22 and stated that staff split multiple family and
cluster housing because in cluster housing there are often private driveways to
each unit and by having a 15 foot setback from the curb line there is not enough
space to park a car. Some of the requirements are being changed. Upon further
staff review, it is suggested that the language in 1a on page 22 that is deleted
should be retained.
Ms. Velick moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendments and forward to the City Council for a public hearing and
the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Morris and Velick
voting in favor.
The Commission discussed timing of receipt of new copies of zoning ordinances,
comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance amendments and recommended
receiving copies on computer disk.
6. Communications
A. Planning Commission Training
Ms. Erickson stated that she has contacted a consultant who specializes in
Planning Commission training. This consultant has suggested holding a full day
session on a Saturday. He proposes that training also be open for members of the
City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals. He proposes to cover the following
topics along with other topics that have been identified by the Planning
Commission: Rationale for planning, details and differences between zoning,
subdivision, variances, and comprehensive planning, new approaches to planning,
citizen participation - technique and advantages, smart growth, preserving a sense
of place in your community, and desired topics by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission supported the idea and suggested holding the training
meeting in October or November. Staff will confirm the availability of each
Planning Commission member, set a meeting date, and notify the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Erickson indicated that she has discussed with Community Development staff
from Fridley and Richfield the idea of holding a joint Planning Commission
roundtable/open house. Staff will confirm the availability of each Planning
Commission member, set a meeting date, and notify the Planning Commission.
123
Mr. Carver suggested that staff from each City identify something unique in their
City to bring to the discussion.
The Planning Commission recommended use of e-mail for Planning Commission
Meeting notification.
B. Recent City Council Action - August 2, 1999 – a verbal report was given
C. Other
7. Miscellaneous - None
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
124
Item # 9e*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM -- FIRST FLOOR
CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Dennis Morris,
Jerry Timian (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg
STAFF PRESENT: Dave Anderson, Judie Erickson, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of August 4, 1999
Mr. Carver moved approval of the minutes of August 4, 1999 and the motion passed on a
vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Morris and Velick voting in favor.
3. Public Hearings:
A. Case No. 99-21-PUD - Request of General Growth Properties Inc. for a combined
Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development to redevelop a portion of an
existing mall as a 16-screen theater and parking deck and other changes for
property located at 8332 Highway 7 (Knollwood Mall).
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a staff report. She stated that
General Growth Properties, Inc., the owners of the Knollwood Mall, are proposing
to redevelop a portion of the existing mall as a 16-screen, 2,990 seat state-of-the
art theater, with a parking deck below the theater. The theater is proposed to be
located on the north side of the mall, between the existing Cub Foods and T.J.
Maxx stores. A combined preliminary and final Planned Unit Development
(PUD) is requested for approval of the theater, as well as for parking circulation
and building facade changes, and reductions in required number of parking stalls
and required landscape bufferyards. As part of this proposal, the City did ask the
developer to commission a traffic study which has been done. The study looked
at projected traffic in the area, in-terms of peak theater hours, total volumes,
circulation on and off the site, and noise.
125
She stated there are significant storm water issues on the site, which the applicant
is still working with the Public Works Department to resolve. The issues have
off-site impacts as well, as there is currently a flooding problem north of 36th
Street which may be partially resolved through the redevelopment. In addition,
staff has asked the developer to propose a screening plan which will accommodate
a sidewalk along 36th Street, and the developer has needed additional time to
work on these plans. Due to these unresolved issues, staff is recommending
continuance of the public hearing and consideration of the PUD until the
September 15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Velick asked if staff has received information on the traffic study.
Ms. Peterson indicated that we have received a traffic study. One of the
outstanding issues could impact the results of the traffic study. Basically, the
study cannot be finalized until some of these other issues are resolved.
Ms. Velick stated that it sounds like a pretty congested area already and asked if
the unresolved issues have anything to do with it.
Ms. Peterson indicated that General Growth is proposing to close one of the curb
cuts along 36th Street to promote more internal traffic and get some of the theater
traffic off of 36th Street. Cub Foods may have an issue with this. Staff is asking
General Growth to provide assurance that loading and circulation would continue
to be adequate for Cub Foods and that Cub Foods agrees to the closing of the curb
cut. Not closing the curb cut would change the traffic study results significantly.
Chair Morris asked if the theater building is proposed to be higher than the
existing Cub.
Ms. Peterson indicated that it is a few feet higher than the existing building,
approximately 50 feet high.
Chair Morris asked how many parking stalls are proposed to be below the ground deck or below the
theater deck. He said he is not certain if the parking is going to be at grade now with the theater
above it, or the theater at grade and the parking excavated below it.
Ms. Peterson stated that there will be two levels of parking below the theater. The
first level is partially at grade and partially below grade.
In response to a question from Chair Morris on the number of parking stalls, Ms.
Peterson stated there are approximately 600 stalls.
Chair Morris stated that he realizes we are asking a lot of questions without staff
having all the answers, but possible by just asking, it clarifies things for parties
that would speak to the public hearing.
126
Chair Morris opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Ms. Bissonnette asked if the additional 600 stalls boost the total number of
existing parking units in the mall to a level that would trigger an indirect source
permit.
Ms. Peterson stated she does not actually have the answer as to whether that
triggers an indirect source permit. The total number of stalls is approximately
2700.
Anna Crabb, 3540 Yukon Avenue South, stated “I reside just north of Knollwood
Mall separated by one house and the street between. From my home I can hear
Knollwood traffic and I have returned temporarily in the middle of my vacation
out of town to attend this meeting. I am going to give my substantive comments
now, because I am not sure I will be able to attend the next meeting. I am
interested in economic development of St. Louis Park and I appreciate the
opportunity to comment. I have several concerns about the proposal. My most
immediate concern is noise pollution. My other concerns are signage, security
and traffic. The latest plan unveiled by Knollwood shows cars entering a parking
ramp, coming from the west and being diverted behind the building to the north.
These cars would pass between the mall and my home. The cars headlights would
be blocked from my home, because my street is slightly elevated. Currently plans
are for evergreen trees to insulate the neighborhood from the noise. Knollwood
officials stated at their meeting that a study on noise would be done and I am not
aware of the results of the study. I am concerned because there are currently
evergreens in this area anyway and they do not fully insulate the noise from such
things as plow trucks at night in the winter. To prevent disruption, I would first
propose that the traffic for the proposed ramp enter from the south side of the mall
rather than be diverted around the west side of the mall to the rear of the mall. I
believe that most of the traffic would be during the evening and that would take
care of the problem by keeping the noise to the south part of the mall. As a last
resort, I would ask that alternative sound barriers would be explored and
implemented into any plans. The evergreens are not effective. What about other
options which could combine aesthetics and sound blockage such as landscape
berms or walls. I have attended other meetings with Knollwood where officials
promised to try to come up with something to address the noise concerns and it
appears that the plans as unveiled tonight are essentially the same as presented in
previous meetings. I believe any plan should be approved by balancing
development with disruption to the neighborhood after full exploration of the
noise issues and alternatives. Any required improvement should be charged to the
party performing the development. I am not opposed to revitalizing the mall
because I believe the change is inevitable, but I am opposed to the plans as they
are currently presented based on my concerns”.
127
Chair Morris stated that he assume that there have been several neighborhood
meetings where preliminary plans have been shown and discussed at the
neighborhood level.
Ms. Peterson stated she understands there have been two neighborhood meetings,
one held a few months ago and one last month.
Al Navratil, 3536 Wyoming Avenue South, stated “I have two issues. The issue
of the water run off from the mall shouldn’t go north to the streets. Does this
enhance our chance to change the run off so it doesn’t go north. My other issue is
installing the north crosswalk that is by Wyoming because cars hardly ever stop
and, in fact, last night I was in the middle of the road and cars weren’t stopping.
So, if someone could add lights and a sign saying you have to stop someone is in
the middle of the road that would be great”.
Chair Morris asked which curb cut is being proposed to be closed.
Ms. Peterson indicated where the curb cut is on the plan.
Mr. Carver stated he would like to reiterate Mr. Navratil’s comments. The
concerns are the cars that are going through on 36th Street because, while the
cross walk is very bright, rarely does anyone pay any attention to it.
Ms. Velick stated that the crosswalk referred to is right near the curb cut where
people leave Knollwood Mall. She said she never sees anybody stop. Ms. Velick
asked if there is signage available to place at the crosswalk.
Chair Morris indicated that there can be flashing lights and signs at crosswalks.
Mr. Timian asked for a clarification of where there are stop signs along 36th
Street.
Chair Morris stated that we have all driven this piece of road and know exactly
what the problems are. The traffic study would be one of the things we would be
wanting to see before we would be discussing the intensified use of 36th Street.
Chair Morris asked that if there are additional people wishing to speak please
come forward. He stated that he sees the two major concerns are noise and traffic,
as well as ponding water run off.
Jeff Gunderson, 3532 Virginia Avenue South, “Concerning the run off, I see the
new parking ramp is going to be right across from Wyoming which is a flood
valley right now. I live on Virginia right behind there and I have seen water levels
rise. My backyard is a slope about 4-5 feet in height and I have seen water levels
up about 4 feet and everything on Wyoming was flooded 2-3 feet. If waters from
128
rains even slightly come off there into that valley, it is going to be a disaster for
people who live on Wyoming and Virginia. I know my basement had 2-3 inches
of water in it from a rain back in early June, 1998 when we had 4-5 inches in 2-3
hours and it was a disaster getting around there”.
Chair Morris stated that he knows staff is working on this. He said he was not
aware that there were flooding issues on the north side of 36th He said he
thought the issues were drainage for the Knollwood site and asked staff if they
would be bringing back the whole scope of the residential neighborhood as well as
the Knollwood site.
Ms. Peterson stated that the Public Works Department did a study within the last
year of problem flooding areas. Within the City there were 22 areas identified
where there are significant problems and the 36th and Wyoming area is one of
those areas. The Public Works Department is requiring as part of this
development, hat the run off from the mall will be addressed and that is some of
the information that is currently being evaluated.
Chair Morris stated that, in general without the information, what we are saying is
that the impact of the run off from the mall is what is spilling over into the
residential area where the drainage is overwhelming the current pipe capacity. He
stated that the staff recommendation is to continue the public hearing to
September 15, 1999 so additional comments can be made when more information
is available and more detailed site and landscape plans are available to the
Commission and the public.
Delores Hook, 3533 Wyoming Avenue, stated “One time we had the water so bad
that the water came in our back door that is how deep it gets. The City (Scott
Anderson) told us that before they did any upgrading to Knollwood at all they
would take care of our problem, but they have since put in that parking lot and
haven’t done anything. I hope they don’t push this plan over and don’t do a
thing”.
Eugene Kreager, 3536 Yukon Avenue South, stated “I would like to address two
things. Texas Avenue is getting plugged already with Cub Food there. There is
no turning lane and you are only 100 feet from Highway 7. You are going to have
to address that problem, widen the street and put turning lanes in or a signal light
because traffic is getting crazy there. Secondly, you have no police report on this.
What is the crime going to be with all the theaters there? There are going to be a
lot of young kids going to this theater, parents are going to drop kids off and
disappear for hours. What are these kids going to do, come up in the residential
area. Most of these theaters are in commercial and industrial areas where the kids
don’t have anyplace to go. Are they going to come up into our neighborhood to
see what is going on because they are bored”.
129
Chair Morris asked Ms. Peterson, as part of the response to the PUD, is there any
public safety review of the proposal.
Ms. Peterson stated all development proposals are routed to the police and fire
departments. If so directed by the Commission, staff would be happy to speak
with the police department and also ask General Growth for specific information
on how they plan to deal with security issues as part of the information that we
bring back for the next meeting.
Chair Morris stated that, having heard the public comment on the intensified use
with later hours and bringing more transit into the area, he wonders if the police
feel that this type of activity needs additional security.
Judie Erickson stated that there is a cop shop at Knollwood Mall right now and
perhaps looking at extended hours might be an option. There has been some
amount of police presence.
Gwen Kreager, 3536 Yukon Avenue South, stated “Regarding the cop shop, in the
last three months I have yet to find a police officer down there. I have gone
looking several times during the day, during afternoon hours between 3-5 p.m.
There has been no one there and the office has always been closed. I have seen
one at Texa-Tonka, but not at the Knollwood Mall. They say they are there, but I
don’t know where. Since they are taking out several stores, are there plans for the
rest of the mall? Are they going to try relocate the stores from one end to the
other? I have lived in my house for 14 years. The mall used to be great, you
could walk over and do all of your Christmas shopping and never have to get into
your car. Now, you are lucky to get a roll of film developed over there because
everyone has left. Are they going to try to keep the tenants that they have, or is it
just going to be Cub at one end, Kohl’s at the other and the stupid theater in the
middle. They can’t even keep the ones that they got filled, I don’t know how they
are going to keep 16 filled, when they have four other theaters within two miles,
Hopkins, Excelsior, Oden, Shelard. There are about 40 different theaters within
two miles of Knollwood. Myself, I don’t see much reason for it. They should
actually be thinking of ways to regenerate the mall and make it actually a mall
again for shopping and keep it a 4 or 6 instead of 16. It just doesn’t make a lot of
sense to me. About the traffic and the water, I know that 36th Street floods out
every time we get a big rain. I don’t know how they dealt with that. 36th Street
and Aquila floods out when we get heavy rains and the whole street to Burger
King, that whole side there will flood out”.
Chair Morris stated that he believes at the next meeting in which the whole
proposal is talked about by the Planning Commission, the representatives from the
Mall and General Growth Properties are going to be here. The type of questions
you are asking as to the development of the mall as a whole could be answered at
that time.
130
Ms. Kreager stated “The development of the mall as a whole is what needs to be
addressed; to me this looks like a cop out. They have had problems with
management at the mall, people have been leaving because of mismanagement at
the mall and to me this is a cop out, because the mall is going to own it and they
won’t have any tenants to deal with, just this theater with Cub at one end and
Kohl’s at the other”.
Chair Morris stated that over the past few years, the Planning Commission has
seen the development of Kohl’s, Cub Foods, and issues regarding the little
farmer’s market with licenses. So many pieces of the Knollwood Mall have come
to the Planning Commission with explanation by the management as to what there
expectation and what the growth was. He said he believes this is going to be
another piece of their plan and hopefully they will be able to explain to the
community how they are expecting the mall to develop at the continuation of the
public hearing.
Donna Vasser, 3544 Virginia Avenue South stated “I was just going to restate
some of the concerns that we have. One is the traffic. It would be nice if the City
would do their own traffic study, because the last study they did for Cub Foods
was way off. They were saying that the traffic would increase maybe 70-80 cars a
day and we are doing about 150 cars a day, if not more, in our neighborhoods.
Secondly, is the safety of the mall, security guards and police officers are no
where to be found. My husband and some of the neighbors had to do some of
their own things to protect kids out there, which I don’t think they should be
doing. I think it should be up to the police and the security. About moving the
bus stop to the other side, if this is going to be direct bus line from Minneapolis
into St. Louis Park, I think that is the only bus line that will come to a cinema
theater. Some of the promises that they made with Cub Foods, the things that we
were suppose to see didn’t happen. Who enforces those promises? We were
promised pine trees along 36th Street, there are no pine trees along 36th Street.
We were promised a wall to go all the way outside to the edge of Cub. The wall
doesn’t go that far; it only goes half way. Who enforces this, how do they get
away with saying this is the plan I presented to you, but now there are no pine
trees, the wall doesn’t go as far as it is suppose to? Are they going to make the
promises again. We are going to say we believe in this, and then all of a sudden
they are gone and bring it up at the next meeting, well that was between St. Louis
Park and Cub Foods. They are the ones that decided it, but yet General Growth
are the ones that presented it us. They are the ones who should make sure that
everything was being involved. The delivery hours are suppose to be from 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. They are coming in as early as 5:30 a.m., we are getting
dumpsters dropped off in the middle of the night at 4:30 a.m. and when they are
getting dropped off it is not a quiet drop off, it shakes our house. These are all
things that are concerns of our neighborhood that we are seeing. The noise levels
are tremendous, you get wakened up three to four times a night. If you are a
131
person who needs to get up at 5:30 a.m. in the morning, you certainly don’t want
to be wakened up so many times”.
Chair Morris stated as a partial response to Ms. Vasser’s inquiry, he asks staff to
investigate the enforcement of the site plan and the approval that was made by the
Planning Commission. I will echo something that Ms. Crabb said. He said he
went by the site again today and what struck in his mind is that there are all these
deciduous trees along 36th Street. He thought as well that there were supposed to
be pine trees between the loading dock and the street. I didn’t see any, so that is a
specific concern as to why previous landscape requirements and other
requirements were not met.
Ms. Peterson stated that it is true that Cub has not followed through with all of
their requirements. The responsibility is with the Inspections Department to
follow through on all of those issues. Inspections is working on getting
compliance. Basically, Cub does not have a permanent occupancy permit yet, so
the City still has some leverage to require this compliance and Cub is not off the
hook yet. Staff has been meeting with the management of Cub Foods and the
mall to try to resolve these issues. It is correct that there were evergreens that
were suppose to be planted there. She said she would have more information on
September 15th.
Ms. Vasser stated “At the first meeting that we were at, they stated that the height
of the building was going to be 6 feet, then it went up to 8 feet, then 10 feet higher
than Cub Foods. I was never quite sure how high it was going to be because it
always changed”.
Chair Morris stated that at the presentation to the Planning Commission the
building elevation must be presented, so if they are waffling on what they are
telling you at the informational meetings, it will be nailed down as a part of the
presentation to the Planning Commission. They have to define the height because
there are a lot of architectural standards that will come into affect with that, so that
will be addressed too.
Jeff Green, 3541 Virginia Avenue South, stated “About the bus stop and moving
it to the front, when they had that video arcade there, it just became a hang out.
There were kids out there at 2:00 a.m. in the morning and we always called the
police on them. So I guess if the main doors are on the front of the building, I
don’t think there is a reason for moving it. It is noisy. We seal up the house now.
It used to be that at 9:30 p.m. everything was closed at the mall, so there wasn’t a
car on the street, so my opinion is that the downfall of Knollwood has been a
blessing to the neighborhood, but they are not going to let that happen. If they are
going to have 650 cars there and they are all bailing out onto 36th Avenue at
12:30 a.m., I don’t know what it takes to get some kind of barrier between those
cars. If I had it my way, I would close all the entrances and exits off of 36th Street
132
and have everyone come through the front of the mall. My concern is the noise
and it becoming a hangout in back of the theater”.
Chair Morris asked staff if there are any more plans for another informational
meeting by the property owner for the neighborhood between now and the
September 15th meeting.
Ms. Peterson stated that staff recommended that the developer hold a
neighborhood meeting before the public hearing process got started to open
communication.
Chair Morris stated that considering the concerns and the uncertainty as to what is
being proposed, a recommendation is that they may want to try scheduling another
meeting with the neighborhood prior to the next presentation at the Planning
Commission. He said he could envision a lot of questions being asked at the next
meeting when some people see something for the first time and maybe the
developer can answer a lot of those questions about traffic circulation, noise,
police presence and bus stops. Not that it is not part of the Planning Commission
meeting, but certainly it is a much easier format for the neighborhood and the
developer to discuss.
Christopher Erickson, 3533 Virginia Avenue South, stated “The noise isn’t
tolerable at this point, because at 4:30 a.m. dumpsters get dropped. I’ll wake up at
3:30 a.m. from hearing a truck that pulled in early to the loading dock at Cub.
They have had a couple meetings with the developer and General Growth
properties and I don’t know what to tell you. The Cub Food issues are not
resolved and so what we are seeing is a spill over from that and some issues in
terms of the theater’s last show getting out at 12:30 p.m. Cub drops their
dumpsters at 4:30 a.m., so that gives about four hours of good quality sleep. I
would like to see a file on what has been given to the Planning Commission,
because it would be interesting to start from 40 years ago to see when Knollwood
was built. I have heard rumors that there was a beautiful prairie setting behind
Knollwood when it was being built. My concern is that at the neighborhood
meeting, we saw the pictures of the theater and another wild life setting. I was
expecting to see deer. I was kind of squinting and saying, oh, there is the theater
back there. I saw lots of real nice trees and a little bit of color. Now I see a lot of
color and trees that are going to lose their leaves. No walls or berms. One thing I
would like to propose is that some kind of sound wall be put on the north side of
36th Street and some kind of design that could maybe reflect some of the noise
back. The issue of security is a concern. Kids are going to be out there at 12:30
a.m. and I think there is going to be a lot of trouble”.
Mr. Timian asked Mr. Erickson if they are you currently having problem with
youth in that area.
133
Mr. Erickson stated, “If you currently look where Cub Food is and where all the
parking spaces on the north side are there will occasionally be youth sitting in
their cars looking at our houses, same as with the bus stop”.
Ms. Vasser stated “There have been a lot more kids coming into the
neighborhoods, sitting behind the wall that we have at the crosswalk. They are
smoking their cigarettes and breaking bottle in the streets. We didn’t have this 1-
2 years ago. I have three teenage sons and I wouldn’t allow them to do that”.
Mr. Erickson stated “As we are talking about Knollwood investment, if you look
at all those streets that have an average of 10 houses per street with a current
market price of approximate $110, 000 - $120,000, that is almost a million dollars
on each one of those streets. That is a lot of money when you add it up and I
guess that is something I would like for the record to be considered and we want
to get some issues resolved”.
Chair Morris asked staff if the responsibility for the site plan compliance of Cub
Foods is the responsibility of General Growth properties as the property owner or
Cub Foods as the tenant.
Ms. Peterson stated that the ultimate responsibility is with the property owner.
Chair Morris stated with that in mind, he would like to know what deficiencies
exist from the Cub Foods site plan we approved to date, so we can then
understand what expectations we have of General Growth to fulfill the site plan
that we may approve with this proposal. What I am hearing from the community
is that if it is not done now, how many more years is it going to take and how
many more developers are we going to keep phasing in.
Mark Cohen, 3536 Virginia Avenue South, stated “I agree with all the neighbors
comments, but one thing that bothers me is the amount of light that is coming into
our neighborhood from Cub. I have addressed this issue with the manager of Cub
and asked why they couldn’t keep the same amber colored lights that Montgomery
Wards was using. They said that there were a lot more people roaming around. I
still think there is plenty of light that spills 3-4 houses deep into the
neighborhood.”
Chair Morris stated that he believes that was part of the previous site plan and
asked staff to determine if the lighting plan is in compliance and what the light
plan for the new development will be.
Ms. Vasser stated, “I talked to two real-estate agents and what scares me is that a
lot of us in the neighborhood have spent a lot of money on our homes and it is
going to depreciate the value of our homes. Two real-estate companies said that
once the theater goes in and the crime rate goes up, our home values are going to
134
go down. That is not fair to the home owners in St. Louis Park in a residential
area that have spent a lot of time, money and effort to keep that neighborhood
clean”.
Jeff Gunderson, 3532 Virginia Avenue South, stated “ I moved into the area four
years ago and the crime in the area was almost non-existent, but starting back
about two years ago, I have heard of many cars being broken into on the streets at
night and crime in the area has increased. One of my guests had his car broken
into which was sitting on the street right in front of my house, and I have heard
this from other neighbors. Someone down the street has a car alarm and that goes
off once a week”.
Al Navratil, 3536 Wyoming Avenue South, stated “We are giving you all of the
issues. Will you take the ball and run or do we have to come back and present
them again to you?”
Chair Morris stated that they do not have to come back. Quite often when there
is a controversial development in the neighborhood, people will come back and
readdress the same issues again to the Planning Commission. In all truth, we hear
you the first time. You may not have to come back to speak to the Planning
Commission, but you may want to find out what is presented at the continuation
of the public hearing. There may be new information that comes out that you may
have questions on.
Jan Loftus, Administrative Secretary stated all comments become a part of the
permanent record of the meeting and the Planning Commission minutes go
forward to the City Council.
Mr. Timian asked if there is a construction deadline.
Ms. Peterson stated that what she knows from the developer is that they hope to
begin construction yet this fall, but she is not sure on an anticipated completion
date.
Chair Morris stated that we are dealing with enforcement issues and one question
is what are the hours permitted for construction activities.
Mr. Timian asked if we could give the phone number and contact person to these
folks of who they should call in the Inspections Department when they have a
complaint.
Ms. Peterson stated that it would be Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator.
135
Ms. Loftus stated that Mr. Moore’s number is 924-2592. The general inspections
number is 924-2588 to report concerns on noise enforcement and hours of
operation .
Jay Kelly, Xylon Avenue South, stated “I just moved in and think we all need our
properties to appreciate, especially in this housing boom. I want to state for the
record that without a wall of some sort, there can’t just be trees, the real estate will
probably depreciate. I think we absolutely need a wall or else we are in trouble in
terms of selling the houses. I don’t know why all the traffic doesn’t come in on
Highway 7 since they have a lot of parking there and the traffic would flow a lot
better”.
Ms. Vasser asked “Through the construction part of this and when the damages
come to the homes with walls cracking and stuff, who is responsible for that?”
Chair Morris stated that the general contractor would be responsible.
Chair Morris closed the public hearing with a continuance to the next Planning
Commission meeting on September 15th.
Mr. Kelly asked “How affective is this process. If someoone owns a property and
they want to build on it, are they going to just build it”.
Chair Morris stated that no one on this Commission feels that we rubber stamp
anything. We are an advisory board to the City Council and, as part of that
advice, we listen to the community. However, development may happen because
the Comprehensive Plan, Ordinances, Zoning Code, and the City of St. Louis Park
don’t prohibit it, and you can’t deny development without substantial reasons.
Mr. Carver moved to continue the public hearing and consideration of the Planned
Unit Development until the September 15th Planning Commission Meeting. In
addition to all of the considerations that have to be addressed for the P.U.D., he
also specifically requested of staff, information concerning security issues related
to the theater, and issues related to the crosswalk on 36th near Wyoming Avenue
South. In addition, Chair Morris asked to add the other issues that were raised by
the Commission to staff regarding the questions and concerns of the neighborhood
related to noise, traffic, lighting and flooding be brought back to the next
continuation of this hearing. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with
Bissonnette, Carver, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor.
4. Old Business:
A. Case No. 99-13-ZA - Request of Vladmir Velikson to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow restaurants with liquor to be permitted with conditions in the
C-2 District (tabled 7-21-99)
136
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report. She stated that the
Planning Commission had reviewed this request on July 21, 1999. Staff has
recommended that restaurants with liquor be permitted with conditions in the C-2
district, but restaurants and other uses with accessory bars still be required to
obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission directed staff to
determine 1) What nonconformities exist on the Texa-Tonka shopping center site;
and 2) What properties would be affected by the proposed text amendment, and
whether any nonconformities would be created. Staff recommends approval of the
text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Timian asked if some of the current liquor licenses would go away under the
redevelopment of Excelsior Boulevard and would there be some new ones added
back into the pool.
Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate stated that there would be.
Mr. Carver asked what is meant by a future plan for a study area of Texa-Tonka.
Mr. Peterson, stated that the City would undertake a comprehensive planning
study for a specific geographic area that has redevelopment potential.
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, stated that the study would take an area,
look at the current land uses and try to analyze what in fact would be the best
future land use for the area. If the best future land use is not the current land use,
it would then be considered to be a future redevelopment area where there could
potentially be redevelopment. The City could perhaps participate in that
redevelopment and we could solicit a new developer for the area and all of those
kinds of things, but obviously its one step at a time to get to that point.
Mr. Carver asked if there are any inducements for the property owner for his
property being a part of the study area, or is that the next step after it is a study
area.
Ms. Erickson stated that she is not sure she can really answer that question for the
developer. What the property owner has told us is that if there is a land use
change, he would consider selling the property, that is my understanding. The
developer’s attorney is here so he may be able to better answer that question.
Ms. Bissonnette asked if the study would be similar to the process that happened
along Excelsior Boulevard?
Ms. Erickson stated that it is probably would be. The area around Excelsior
Boulevard has been in a redevelopment district since the 1970’s so there have
137
been several land use studies for that area. It has taken a fair amount of time to
get those land use studies implemented in the Excelsior Boulevard area.
Chair Morris asked if Texa-Tonka is already in a TIF district.
Ms. Erickson stated that it is in a redevelopment project area, not a TIF district.
Vladimir Velikson, 19627 Waterford Court, stated “This is my first experience to
be here, and I apologize that I have not had a chance to prepare myself for this
presentation. I wasn’t here on July 21, 1999 and I want to explain in detail the
certain particular aspects of what we are going to develop in the Texa-Tonka
shopping center. For the last four years, we have owned the Euro Gourmet in
Texa-Tonka shopping center. It is attached to a store which provides product for
quite a larger following in the American community in the cities. For the last
year, a substantial number of people came to us asking if we would be opening a
restaurant with a European accent. The facility which was Snyder’s suddenly
became available. The more we looked at this opportunity for people in the
community, we came to the conclusion that it is probably worth it to try. Before I
could develop this project to a larger scale, I had opportunity to meet with Scott
Moore and Sacha Peterson, just to share with them the idea and did not want to
attract attention of so many people in St. Louis Park. Right now, it will be 6,000
square feet with no bar, a lounge area and with an area where people can flock to.
It will be in a bright color between white and blue with a very clean appearance.
The idea is to translate the vision of the Euro Gourmet in this restaurant. We
don’t really want to be a bar where people can stop and have a drink and go home.
Our idea and our vision which is typically applied to European style restaurant,
you will have drink or wine cocktail to go with meal. There will be live music,
exclusively on Friday and Saturday night. Concern about traffic can’t be that
great because major occupants in the restaurant will happen on Friday and
Saturday night when there is decreased traffic on Minnetonka Boulevard”.
Ms. Bissonnette left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Jim Yarosh, attorney representing Fine Properties of Minnesota, stated “I was here
on July 21, 1999 and we spoke about the issues and the non-conformities. You
sent it back to look at the non-conformities with Texa-Tonka. The shopping
Center was built in the 1950’s and expanded in separate stages, so it is not
unusual that you would have a number of non-conformities with the site. I think
what it shows you is that you have to almost do something if you are going to
have a use like this in that shopping center because it is not going to be feasible
for a property owner for 6,000 square feet out of a much larger shopping center to
make all these changes to allow a use such as this would make costs prohibitive
and not necessarily economically justified. I think that is what the report shows
and that is why there is a need for a text amendment. The second issue that they
sent back for review was to look at what kind of affect there will be. As Ms.
138
Peterson pointed out, there won’t really be much affect given that this is kind of a
rare use to have liquor without any accessory bar. So it doesn’t seem like the
impact of this text amendment would be that great. My client does support this
application and the whole concept of what Mr. Velikson is proposing. One
concern is the conditions proposed by staff and in conferring with Mr. Scott
Moore who would be in charge of enforcing the conditions, he seemed to indicate
that with bufferyard F (condition D in the proposal), that there may be some issue
there. I do have some photographs that kind of show the bufferyard in the back of
the property. The closest structure to the property is the dental office right on the
corner and that is where this particular lease promises to be. We will be closest to
that. Neighboring residents are up on a hill. There is berm back there and a fence
and if you know, Texa-Tonka Avenue kind of curves around so it gets further
away from the shopping center at that point where the restaurant is being
proposed. The ordinance does allow some break for existing non-conforming
structures. I talked with Scott Moore and it does seem that it is not that
problematic to either add a few trees, shrubs or plants in the back if it is necessary.
Keep in mind that there is an alley back there and no one can see these plants or
trees in any event, so it doesn’t make sense. As far as the goals of the conditions,
I don’t think there will be a problem with this use in my understanding in talking
with staff. One of the challenges with any zoning code, as you know, as hard as it
is to change with the time and new uses and concepts, I don’t know if the code
adequately deals with what is being proposed here tonight. It is a new concept in
that it has this cultural Eastern European flavor to it as I understand and part of
that is to have drinks with dinner and the dancing.
Mr. Yarosh stated that the dancing may pose another problem with the zoning
code and that is one of the things that I want to present to you tonight is that is
what gives the human element to make the adjustment so the code can grow over
time. If you look at the proposed text amendment, Item E says the use cannot
include an accessory bar unless a conditional use permit has been approved. Mr.
Velickson stated that he has no plans for a bar at this time. I propose on behalf of
my client, Mr. Velickson, that you place a recommendation to the Council, if you
so choose and think this will be a good use for the site that would say “but may
include music and dancing as long as it does not exceed 25% of the premises” or
there may be some other language that may be more appropriate that could
accommodate his vision and use and fit within the zoning code. One concern
from my client’s perspective and Mr. Velickson is the timing and how long this
takes. Assuming he meets all the codes and requirements and then starts the
liquor licensing process that may take 90 days. I encourage you to consider this
proposal as a whole and consider my recommendation and urge that you approve
with the recommended conditions to this proposal”.
Mr. Carver asked Mr. Yarosh if he knows what the position is of Fine properties
to include his property within the study area”
139
Mr. Yarosh stated “I don’t know if he has made any determination. He has not
indicated to me directly his willingness to sell. He is interested and willing to
participate and would like to see what kind of ideas the City proposes to him. He
desires to get this space fully leased and as we discussed last time, the problem is
how much you invest and then you have to raise the rents. If you are not getting
renters in there anyhow, how can you balance it? Maybe there is an opportunity
for the City to help with some redevelopment plan and help make some proposals.
I think that is why he is interested in coming into the process and say I want to
participate and work with the City on this study area and see where it goes. I
think he wants to make this shopping center work.
Ms. Velick stated that if the commercial study indicates that something else
should be there, this could be quite a risk for Mr. Velikson.
Mr. Velikson stated “I do not know about the study. I have invested a lot of
money and work to develop my store. When I talked with Mr. Fine and ask him
what is the reason that you want to support us with developing this project and
investing a substantial amount of money to absolutely rebuild this facility, he said
because he sees a vision and future in the shopping mall. He wants to participate
in this study and wants to put some effort and definitely spend money to upgrade
this facility. I strongly believe this facility needs an upgrade and I would be very
supportive in this redevelopment project”.
Mr. Yarosh stated, “Obviously if he was in business and the study shows it
should be residential in 30 years or something, unless the City condemns the
property, and eventually rezone the property or the like, there would be a non-
conforming use there. It is not like you would just have to stop business right then
and there”.
Ms. Velick stated that it appears that the store has been quite successful.
Chair Morris stated he would vote for any kind of deal that could happen to make
Mr. Velikson’s proposal go forward, but when it comes to tweaking the zoning
ordinance specifically for an individual tenant when it has these ramifications
throughout the rest of the city, that he is hesitant. He asked if there is any way we
can have a deal here where some how part of the non-conformities could be
addressed, such as putting in some landscaping, lighting and curbing if only
addressing the area where the tenants of the business are, a partial improvement of
the property both initiating a new business that could stimulate the rebuilding of
Texa-Tonka, but not require major or entire improvement. I would like to see a
deal cut, but I don’t think that is possible, because what we are being asked here is
to change the ordinance and you either can or cannot do it. It is making a broad
decision that affects all zoning properties in the City as opposed to this specific
one. Has staff come up with any feasible alternatives to changing the zoning
ordinance and still permitting the expansion of the tenant”.
140
Ms. Peterson stated that the applicant could go through the variance process. This
is the only means of requiring conformance on some areas and not requiring
conformance on others.
Chair Morris asked if variances can have conditions.
Ms. Peterson stated that variances can have conditions.
Chair Morris asked, with the proposed change in the Planning Commission
hearing BOZA variances, would this be an issue that would come before the
Planning Commission under that scenario of the BOZA.
Chair Morris stated that his sentiment is to leave the zoning code as is which is a
detriment to Mr. Velikson, but that is his opinion giving weight to all that has
been said and done before us. It is not in the best interest of the community to
lose the tool of bringing non-conformities into conformance. I think we always
find a landlord tenant situation where the landlord is not improving the property,
but the tenant wants to stay. My vote would be to not change the zoning for this
as recommended by staff.
Ms. Velick stated that she wants to clearly think about this because she assumed it
would automatically pass because it would be an effort to revitalize an area that
we want to be revitalized. What would the ramifications be of this change to
other restaurants in St. Louis Park?
Ms. Peterson stated that staff looked at all the 24 restaurants that have liquor
licenses now, which have the same type of license that Mr. Velikson would be
applying for. Of those restaurants, all of them have an accessory bar. So basically
these text amendments would not affect any of those restaurants because they
would still fall under the conditional use permit requirements. In the future, it is
conceivable that a restaurant could come in that wanted to serve liquor and did
not have an accessory bar and under these text amendments would apply. It
should be noted that however, the evidence suggests that that is a relatively rare
occurrence.
Mr. Carver asked if dancing is regulated by an ordinance.
Ms. Peterson stated that it is. The Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the
zoning code is that dancing would be considered private indoor entertainment and
is a use that is permitted with two conditions in a C-2 district. One is that the
structure which the use is conducted should be located a minimum of 60 feet from
any single family residential lot, and that these be a Bufferyard F adjacent to
residential lots, with certain types of berm walls or masonry walls. She stated that
she thought the 60’ requirement would not be met in this case. The other concern
141
that staff would have about that is that it seems to encourage the potential use of
the restaurant as a bar, regardless of whether there is a separate space where only
drinks are served and that some of the externalities that area associated with an
accessory bar would be similar for live music such as later hours and higher
volumes of traffic. It is very hard to regulate the type of music and dancing and in
this case it is proposed as cultural music, but it would be pretty hard to limit a
hard rock band in another instance.
Mr. Carver stated that he will echo some of Chair Morris’ comments. He said he
is also torn on this particular issue, because the area certainly needs more good
business like Mr. Velikson has brought to the area. It is obvious that he is doing
something right. When I see this and when I look through this list of 10
conditions there are two things that I agree could not be done which are Condition
4 and Condition 10. I do see some things that could be done and the partnership
between Mr. Velikson and the landlord is one that provides an opportunity to
bring this study area into conformance.
Mr. Timian stated that we have had the most immigration to this county since
1988 and here we have an opportunity to actually develop an eastern European
mall, we could essentially bring in a Russian tea room and gift shops and this
could be a regional draw in this diverse community that would be very healthy for
Mr. Fine. We need to take a chance here and, from my point of view, it makes
really good sense as we could be a regional draw for the eastern European
community.
Ms. Velick stated that she echoes what Mr. Timian stated and hopes that things
would work out with Mr. Fine in helping to come to that end. She asked Mr.
Yarosh if he sees that as a possibility with his client that he would be helpful in
complying.
Mr. Yarosh stated “I can’t speak for Mr. Fine, but indicated that Mr. Fine desired
to see the center thrive, but had to consider balancing out the costs of the
architectural improvements. The dancing is an integral part of the operations. If
the dancing is not allowed, I don’t know if Mr. Velikson is going on with the
project”.
Mr. Velikson stated “There would be no chance for us to continue efforts of a
restaurant without dancing. It is a package. There are people looking forward to a
restaurant with dancing like they had in previous life to celebrate birthdays,
anniversaries and holidays. It is not only for eastern Europeans, but other ethnic
groups”.
Mr. Yarosh stated “That is part of putting a human face on a code and how can
you as a body can work within the rules to see a new use with a new concept and
design”.
142
Mr. Velickson stated “We don’t want this to be a drinking destination, but rather
only with dinner. People tend to drink less with dinner”.
Chair Morris indicated that as he understands from Mr. Yarosh’s proposal, it is at
the eleventh hour. We never discussed dancing and he does not even think staff
has investigated the issue of including entertainment or dancing as part of the text
amendment. Now hearing that this may be a do or die issue if entertainment or
dancing is not permitted, then we are changing the zoning code at this level to
accommodate something that may never occur. On another context to the zoning
code, it is determined that the entertainment is not allowed, we have changed the
text for the restaurant with or without liquor license and now we are not going to
accommodate anybody by doing that”.
Mr. Yarosh stated “What I would suggest to you, first of all the private indoor
entertainment definition talks about health clubs and bowling alleys. There is
nothing that identifies this use in the zoning code. This is a text amendment for a
permitted use with conditions and you can set those conditions. If you look at the
definition of a club/lodge it specifically mentions dancing and dining as an option
and this would be closer to that definition. Again, this is an opportunity with an
interesting new concept with a chance for you to determine the conditions of
limitation without any necessarily any long term damaging affects.
Mr. Timian asked if this would work as a club or lodge.
Ms. Peterson stated that clubs and lodges with liquor would require a conditional
use permit and private indoor entertainment is permitted with conditions. So if
the Commission chose to pass the text amendment without an additional condition
pertaining to dancing, what the applicants recourse would be at that point would
be to seek a variance.
Chair Morris discussed options for the Planning Commission on this issue.
Ms. Velick stated that she would like to see staff’s recommendation and a motion
tonight and think it should go on to the City Council for them to decide.
Ms. Velick moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment as
recommended by staff.
Chair Morris questioned if the approval would be as proposed by staff with no
issue of the dancing being introduced as an additional condition E or F. He said
he is not certain that staff can recommend that the condition is acceptable from a
staff perspective. As your proposal to us, would you alter your recommendation
to include that?
143
Ms. Peterson stated that staff would not recommend the additional condition at
this time as it is contrary to the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the code.
Chair Morris stated that the Commission could pass the ordinance amendment as
proposed and deal separately with the issue of entertainment.
Ms. Peterson stated that she would add that the dancing is something that she
became aware of yesterday, and staff would need time to research the issue more
fully.
The motion failed on a vote of 2-2 with Velick and Timian voting in favor and
Morris and Carver voting against.
Mr. Timian moved to forward the request for the text change amendment to the City Council
without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a vote a vote of
3-1 with Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor and Carver voting against.
The Planning Commission took a brief recess.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 99-12-ZA - Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Ms. Erickson suggested and Chair Morris recommended that this item be
deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Carver moved to defer consideration of Case No. 99-12-ZA to the
next Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed with Carver,
Morris, Timian and Velick voting in favor.
ii. Sale of City property located at the southwest corner of
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue to the Economic Development
Authority and then to Frauenshuh – Resolution No. 49
Dave Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator presented a staff
report.
Ms. Velick moved to approve a Resolution Finding the Sale of City owned
property located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana
Avenue to the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority not in
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park and a
portion of the subject site is no longer needed for public use. The motion
144
passed on a vote of 4-0 with Carver, Morris, Timian and Velick voting in
favor.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - August 16, 1999
B. Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator stated that the training date had been
scheduled for Saturday, November 13, 1999 from 8/9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals will also be invited and the information
brought forward will be of interest to everyone. Ms. Erickson encouraged the
Commissioners to let her know what type of interest they had in mind for the
training. She said she will distribute outlines of previous sessions to
Commissioners.
7. Miscellaneous - None
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
145
Item # 9f*
August 20, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
A & T UPHOLSTERY CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 125.00
AIRLIFT DOORS INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 306.87
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 588.48
ALBRECHT, JOAN MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 35.00
ALE, SALO CLOTHING - tax exempt 20.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 99.00
ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 662.65
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
163.14
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.01
ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 28.85
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.35
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE GENERAL SUPPLIES 348.00
ASSN OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES MEETING EXPENSE 30.00
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 47.49
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 46.36
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.85
BCL APPRAISALS INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 215.73
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWN & CARLSON ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -
EXEMPT
80.00
BUNNY'S BAR & GRILL ADULT ATHLETIC/LEAGUES -
EXEMPT
80.00
C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 399.73
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 515.57
CHEYENNE LAND CO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
CHILCOTE, CRAIG INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY GENERAL CUSTOMERS 29.18
CITY OF SHOREVIEW DAILY TICKETS 71.50
CITY OF VADNAIS HEIGHTS DAILY TICKETS 5.50
COLLEGIATE CONCEPTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 530.37
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68)
CONTACT MOBILE
COMMUNICATIONS
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 192.79
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 220.69
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 230.71
DALCO EQUIPMENT PARTS 675.73
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 943.64
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 98.00
DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.58
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &
INDUSTRY
LICENSES/TAXES 20.00
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,067.56
DISCOVERY CLUB DAILY TICKETS 15.00
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
DOHMAN, WARD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 353.00
146
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 295.70
EMPLOYER EDUCATION SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 230.00
ENERGY MASTERS INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 780.00
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.80
EP ELECTRIC PUMP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 8,519.93
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 157.21
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FAEGRE, CATHERINE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 53.75
FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 27.97
FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 73.46
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
0.00
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,135.62
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 835.18
GOLD EAGLE WASH CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
19.49
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 584.50
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 223.65
HACH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 79.56
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 131.62
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
GROUP
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
1,203.31
HAZELWOOD MASONRY INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 4,180.00
HENN CO INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
COMPUTER SERVICES 114.55
HENN CO PUBLIC RECORDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 856.12
HILL, BRENDA GENERAL SUPPLIES 130.71
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 331.50
HOME DEPOT/GECF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 157.23
HORIZONS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,872.00
HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 110.00
HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 325.00
HUMAN KINETICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.70
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.06
ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.00
INACOM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,200.49
INDELCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.61
INSIGHT NEWS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 93.62
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,078.85
IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 39.60
J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 2,116.15
J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 584.61
JOSEPH CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 110.74
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 642.43
KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41
KRUGE-AIR INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,040.62
LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 487.50
LAKE FOREST ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 441.88
147
LANDGREN, ROGER INSURANCE BENEFITS 195.16
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC MOTOR FUELS 75.53
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 259.19
MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 53.26
MANAGED SERVICES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 220.50
MANGES, DAYLE W INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
MANTZ, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 59.63
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MENARDS BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 244.38
METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 159.00
METROCALL TELEPHONE 88.67
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE 2,079.00
MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 3,216.90
MINN MEETINGS & EVENTS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 1,450.00
MINNESOTA GFOA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 400.00
MINNESOTA WOMEN'S PRESS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 195.50
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.32
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 2,722.72
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,583.91
MN/S C I A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 420.00
MORINVILLE, BETTY MEETING EXPENSE 40.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 273.72
MULTIMEDIA INNOVATIONS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 4,409.10
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 114.81
MUTCH, MARTHA J INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,171.50
NEXTEL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00
NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 340.80
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.40
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.65
NORWEST BANK MN-NATIONAL
ASSOC
INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 1,040.00
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 43,851.18
OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 88.14
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 152.33
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 61.30
PARK VALLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 864.57
PAUL COLLINGS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
INTERNATIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,550.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
PLANT DISEASE CLINIC
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
40.00
POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 720.52
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.73
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 202.55
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,895.05
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 96.00
PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 775.20
PROEX PHOTO GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.60
148
QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 824.96
QUICKSILVER POSTAGE 786.99
RACO OIL & GREASE CO LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 17.25
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.74
RAINBOW FOODS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 101.01
RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 89.34
RENNER, JIM & DEBBY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.24
RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000.00
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 36.18
RYDER STUDENT TRANSPORT
SERVIC
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 1,168.32
SAFETY-KLEEN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
219.34
SAMS CLUB #6318 GENERAL SUPPLIES 681.59
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 117.22
SEARS SMALL TOOLS 426.10
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.92
SELA INVESTMENTS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
SEWERMAN INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,350.00
SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
841.35
SHEA, CATHY STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 935.00
SHOPPE, GEORGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.97
SLP SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 27,000.00
SMART TEMPTATIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 168.00
SOHNS, JO MEETING EXPENSE 33.21
SOUTH SIDE ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL 131.80
SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (44.86)
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.73
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.76
STRATEGIC INSIGHTS COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,430.00
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS (341.12)
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 76.75
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 802.72
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 1,224.60
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78)
TALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,160.00
TENNANT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 86.91
TIMION, PHYLLIS BUILDING RENTAL - tax exempt 50.00
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 7,051.85
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 0.16
TWIN CITY REPTILE GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.78
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 3,766.88
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 422.22
VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,019.21
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 245.52
VOELKER, STACY M MEETING EXPENSE 53.84
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 31.13
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 3,011.13
WEST, ROBERT & DEBORAH INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
WILSONS NURSERY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 9,427.00
149
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 31.42
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.69
WOLINS, FREDRICK INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,655.50
ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 247.95
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 751.92
196,159.64
August 27,1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ACORN NATURALISTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.70
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 69.30
ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 755.57
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 624.27
ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 128.34
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 924.58
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE GENERAL SUPPLIES 345.43
ASIAN PAGES OTHER ADVERTISING 39.87
AUDIOVISUAL INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 3,345.69
BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.16
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 452.63
BENISH, SUSAN M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,711.61
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 210.92
BOLIN, PETER SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 60.00
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,036.74
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 107.40
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,706.03
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,898.94
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68)
CONTACT MOBILE
COMMUNICATIONS
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 37.26
CROSBY CONSTRUCTION INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16,458.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.24
DALCO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 30.91
DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 145.45
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,746.60
DIRECT SAFETY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 230.43
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 240.78
ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,822.17
EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
35,442.96
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.13
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 37,707.93
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 82.05
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 70.00
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION 0.00
150
INSURANCE
GALLO, LEIGH GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.99
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CORP
EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,878.03
HEDBERG AGGREGATES LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 896.25
HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF COMM
CORRE
SALARIES - TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES
10,800.00
HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 114.56
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 316.94
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1,500.83
INDELCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.04
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,250.00
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 30.97
JEFFREYS, EDWARD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 321.75
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,448.00
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 32,245.02
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 113.29
MARSHALL & SWIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 129.95
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MC CROSSAN INC, C S OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,219.53
METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL
SE
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
242,617.29
METROCALL TELEPHONE 67.96
MEYER, CHARLES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 728.00
MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 32.13
MINN CHAPTER INTL ASSO ARSON I SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00
MINN CRIME PREVENTION ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00
MINN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 290.00
MINNESOTA CONWAY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 78.24
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 30.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 170.00
MURPHY, SALLY SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 10.00
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 101.12
NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 122.89
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 22,028.29
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 49.71
OLIVEIRA, AL GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.00
PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT
SALES I
GENERAL SUPPLIES 136.59
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 861.22
PERFORMANCE OFFICE PAPERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.22
PFC EQUIPMENT INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 522.92
PINKUS, AARON INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
PLANTAG GENERAL SUPPLIES 110.75
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 2,645.49
PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 693.60
PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING
ENGINEE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 945.00
RAINBOW FOODS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 31.77
RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 22,116.27
151
SERVICE
RARDIN, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 412.00
RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,075.00
SAMPSON MILLER ADVERTISING
INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES 262.30
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 470.43
SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 400.90
SCHMISEK, JOHN M MEETING EXPENSE 229.62
SCHWAAB INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.19
SKYLINE PUBLISHING COMPANY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 195.00
SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (44.86)
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,234.85
ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 9,418.68
STENDEL, HARLAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 209.99
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES (202.78)
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.51
SUBURBAN PROPANE EQUIPMENT PARTS 57.83
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78)
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 8,429.48
VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 503.40
VEIT & COMPANY CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
480.00
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 207.80
VISIONARY SYSTEMS LTD EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,160.00
VOELKER, STACY M STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 284.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SERVICE
299,579.20
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 631.14
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 95.85
YMCA CAMP IHDUHAPI GENERAL SUPPLIES 445.00
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 43.60
807,760.97
September 3, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ABLE COURIER GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.00
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 427.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 68.38
APPLE PRINTING AND
SECRETARIAL
PRINTING & PUBLISHING 666.69
APWA REGISTRATION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 710.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 723.11
ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.40
AUNE, KIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7.64
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 64.77
BCL APPRAISALS INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 350.00
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 365.30
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 373.29
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,276.00
BLOYER, SUE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 213.22
152
BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 140.49
BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MFG CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 138.03
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 201.24
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BURTON EQUIPMENT INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.50
BUSKEY, JENNIFER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 70.52
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 62.40
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 45.18
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 416.61
CHENEY SIGNS OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.36
CITY OF HOPKINS GENERAL SUPPLIES 163.00
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 18.00
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN
HENNE
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,900.00
COMMERCIAL CLAIMS INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 79.00
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68)
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 29.66
CUNNINGHAM, ERNIE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,062.00
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.85
DISCOVERY CLUB DAILY TICKETS 22.00
ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,127.98
EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60.00
ELAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,360.37
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.08
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 134.77
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 82.87
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 39.82
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 334.95
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FERRIAN, EVELYN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
FLIKEID, TERRY GENERAL SUPPLIES 148.94
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INS 0.00
GALLAGHER, ELLEN CLOTHING - tax exempt 10.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (61.47)
GLENN QUIST ART & DESIGN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00
GORMAN, LINDA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 898.00
GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 684.56
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,771.19
GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 282.23
GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 24.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 115.71
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03
HOIGAARD'S ELECTRICAL 16.80
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 274.24
HOME HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 29.26
HUMPHREY, CAROLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 18.05
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 80.44
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 396.54
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #283 OFFICE SUPPLIES 855.16
INSIGHT NEWS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 55.64
153
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 306.25
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 710.36
JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 27.16
JOHNSON, CHRIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 312.50
JOHNSON, MILLIE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.83
JOHNSTON-MADISON, CLAUDIA M OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 52.50
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 183.39
KALOGERSM, GEORGE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
KAPPES, ROSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 34.38
KRAEMER & SONS INC, EDWARD GENERAL SUPPLIES 523.49
KURZEKA, LOUISE UNREALIZED REVENUE 45.14
LAKE, THOMAS A INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
LANE & SONS, RANDY PLUMBING 16.86
LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 454.61
LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 91.55
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 98,569.50
LEAGUE OF MN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMM
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 229.76
LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.29
LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 378.08
LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.19
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 344.72
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS (158.21)
MANTZ, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 240.37
MASON-CUTTERS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 425.00
METRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 421.70
METROCALL TELEPHONE 52.67
MINN MULTI HOUSING ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 175.00
MINN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 145.00
MINNESOTA WANNER GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.26
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 496.79
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 546.35
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (46.00)
MN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 105.00
MOHLER CHIMNEY REPAIR BUILDING 115.20
MORRISSEY, KATHERINE GRANAT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
MOTOROLA GENERAL SUPPLIES 152.30
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 39.52
MULCAHY CO INC, BERNARD J BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 205.71
MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.82
NATHAN, GARY CLOTHING - tax exempt 10.00
NATL NOTARY ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 34.00
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 125.13
NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 183.68
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 561.39
OLIN, VERONICA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
PAPA JOHNS INTERNATIONAL CONCESSION SUPPLIES 81.93
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 924.87
PETERSON, AMY UNREALIZED REVENUE 44.62
PHIMISTER, MEGHAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.05
POMPS TIRE SERVICE INC TIRES 502.83
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 600.00
154
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,604.48
PRINTERS SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28.30
QUICKSILVER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 25.50
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,736.13
RENNIX CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 90.00
SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 664.10
SALONEK, MYRON MEETING EXPENSE 48.50
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS 459.39
SCHWAAB INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 390.62
SELA INVESTMENTS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
SEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 505.70
SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS 31.36
SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 33.88
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,765.71
ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY UNREALIZED REVENUE 750.00
ST LOUIS PARK HIGH SCHOOL
BOOSTER CLUB
GENERAL SUPPLIES-DONATION 400.00
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 4.17
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 257.24
STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 50.00
STEINBERGS, AUDREY MERCH. & RENTALS - taxable 25.00
STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,409.32
STROMBERG, AMBER YOUTH RECREATION-tax exempt 15.00
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 118.20
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 242.14
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,324.78)
TAUTGES REDPATH & CO LTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,430.50
TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,695.43
TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 321.70
TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE EQUIPMENT PARTS 68.40
TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 34.78
TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 775.32
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 44.52
U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 720.69
UHL CO INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 160.00
USTA/NORTHERN SECTION CLOTHING - tax exempt 96.00
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3,089.16
VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,354.81
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 302.50
VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 431.60
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 12.06
WARNING LITES OF MN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,379.53
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,892.68
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.52
WHEELER HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.75
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,523.50
YLVISAKER, JENNIFER & JON-MARC INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.31
ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,119.51
183,339.49
155
September 1, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
HEALTHEAST ST JOHNS HOSPITAL WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
1,073.65
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
31.76
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
59.16
1,164.57
September 1, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 3,048.97
3,048.97
September 1, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE &
ANNUITY
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,477.36
ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 83,360.19
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 406.00
ELIASON, ERIC INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,574.71
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,474.65
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 491.96
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 23,303.06
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 645.00
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR
SERVICES
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,782.00
MINN COMM OF REVENUE SALES TAX 28,055.00
MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,088.80
MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE
INSURANC
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT
CENTE
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,000.57
MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS TAX 99.16
MONDALE, PAM SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 11.25
ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 10,008.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 222,403.68
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 86,633.22
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT
ASSO
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 5,431.42
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 12,257.68
ROGERS ENTERPRISES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.94
S & T LAWN SERVICE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 276.90
SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS-LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04
SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 56,798.79
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 317.35
156
AREA
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,046.47
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 13,500.92
WANZEK CONSTRUCTION INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,500.00
WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP
INSURA
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 39.00
570,141.12
157
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11a
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11a. Confirmation of the Appointment of Jean McGann to the position of Finance
Director
This action confirms the appointment by the City Manager of Jean McGann to the
position of Finance Director
Recommended
Action: Motion to confirm the appointment of Jean McGann to the position
of Finance Director effective October 11, 1999.
Background:
The resignation of Kathleen McBride has created a vacancy in the office of Finance Director.
Recruitment and selection process has resulted in a tentative offer of employment, subject to City
Council ratification, being made to Jean McGann, Finance Director for the City of Andover,
Minnesota.
Ms McGann is a Certified Public Accountant and has served nearly 5 years as the Andover
Finance Director. She previously worked as a manager with a private audit firm. Her
experience in working with tax increment districts, financial management information system
conversions, budgeting and financial management make her well suited for the position in St.
Louis Park.
The City Manager would request that the City Council confirm the appointment effective
October 11, 1999.
Attachments: Resume of Jean McGann
Prepared By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
158
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11b. Hutchinson Spur Trail Update
This report updates the Council on the project status and upcoming issues.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize deposit with the Hennepin County court
$61,825.00 in the Smith condemnation, authorize execution
of lease agreement with the Burlington Northern Railroad
and authorize execution of agreement with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District for wetland replacement.
Background: The City of St. Louis Park has been working for some time to bring about the
construction of a trail along the Hutchinson Spur/Burlington Northern Railroad corridor to
connect the regional trail system in Hopkins with the Cedar lake Trail in Minneapolis. A number
of activities have been completed and a few remain. This report will update the City Council on
those activities, including: general project update, right of way acquisition, and Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District Permit.
General Project Update: The City’s consultant, SRF Consulting Group, has submitted the final
plans to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). They have indicated that their
review comments and resulting plan changes will be minimal. SRF has indicated that the
changes in the plans and returning them to Mn/DOT should take no more than a week. Mn/DOT
has requested all plans must receive final Mn/DOT approval by the end of September to be bid
this year and meet the federal funding requirements. To receive federal funding, which was
approved for this project, this project must be under contract by the end of 1999. It appears we
will meet both of these requirements.
Right of Way Acquisition: All right of way for this project has been obtained with the
exception of three (3) parcels; Super Value (in Hopkins), Smith property, and the Burlington
Northern Railroad.
Super Value – Although this property is in the City of Hopkins, St. Louis Park as the lead agency
agreed to acquire all right of way. The cost of this easement has been agreed to and the
attorney’s for Super Value and Hennepin Parks are finalizing the documents.
Smith Property – This property was placed into condemnation proceedings early in 1999. The
only remaining issue is the value of the property and future snow removal costs. On May 26,
1999 the Court issued an order establishing the City’s right to possession of the easement
pending deposit of $61,825.00 with the Court. The Commissioners hearing is not scheduled until
November. Staff and SRF are continuing to meet with Mr. Smith to try and reach an agreement
159
prior to the Commissioners hearing. It is therefore requested that the City Council authorize the
deposit of $61,825.00 with the Court to secure this easement.
Burlington Northern Railroad – The Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) was not interested in
selling land to the City but was willing to execute a long term lease. The minimum length of
lease accepted by the Federal Highway Administration for a trail is 20 years. The BNRR, after
lengthy negotiations, has agreed to a 20 year lease at $10,000 per year with $30,000 down at the
lease signing. The lease would contain a provision that no increase could occur for 10 years and
be limited to a maximum increase of 20% ($2,000) for the remainder of the lease term. Staff
recommends the Council authorize the execution of said lease and the expenditure of $30,000 at
its signing. It is anticipated that the annual lease payment will be budgeted in the Parks and
Recreation Department budget.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit – The City applied for a permit from the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed district (MCWD) to fill in wetlands. In accordance with the state wetland
requirements, the City must replace filled wetland on a two (2) to one (1) basis. Since the
proposed trail requires .6 acres of fill in a wetland, the City is required to replace 1.2 acres of
wetland. City and SRF staff have not been able to find enough area within the City limits to
create 1.2 acres of new wetland. The MCWD has offered to the City the option of partnering
with them on a remote site within the MCWD boundary. Since the City needs the MCWD
permit for this project and we as yet cannot find a replacement location, the MCWD has offered
to issue the permit upon execution of an agreement for wetland replacement. The basic terms of
the agreement are as follows:
1. The MCWD will make wetland replacement available to the City.
2. The City agrees to partner with the MCWD for the purpose of providing its pro rata cost
share.
3. The City has 90 days from receipt of MCWD notice that a wetland project is available to opt
out of the agreement if another suitable wetland replacement has been found.
4. The Agreement expires January 1, 2004.
Staff recommends the City Council authorize execution of the agreement with the MCWD for
wetland replacement. Should the Council approve the agreement, it will be presented to the
MCWD board at its September 9, 1999 meeting for approval. It is anticipated the permit will be
issued shortly thereafter.
Summary of Action Requests:
1. Deposit $61,825.00 with Hennepin County court in the Smith condemnation.
2. Authorize the execution of lease agreement with Burlington Northern Railroad.
3. Authorize the execution of an agreement with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for
wetland replacement.
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Mike Rardin, Public Works
160
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
161
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11c.* Housing Rehabilitation Fund – Discount Loan Program
The Discount Loan Program is designed to encourage preservation of existing
single family owner occupied housing. The Discount Loan Program will enhance
existing MHFA home improvement loan programs by “buying down” the interest
rate from 8% to 6% for eligible SLP residents.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve $80,000 allocation in Housing Rehabilitation
Fund monies to fund the Discount Loan Program and authorize
the Housing Authority Board to oversee administration of the
Program.
Background:
At the Council’s study session on January 25, 1999, staff reviewed four housing rehabilitation
strategies including a discount loan program, which would write down the interest rate on MHFA
rehab loan products. At that time the Council expressed support for this strategy. Staff also
received input from the Council regarding allowing the Housing Authority Board to oversee the
administration of the City’s rehabilitation programs.
The Discount Loan Program will allow the City to buy down the interest rates of the MHFA’s
Greater MN and Community Fix-Up Fund home improvement loans from 8% to 6%. The lower
interest rates will be an incentive to residents to maintain and expand their existing housing.
Staff is requesting that $80,000 of the Housing Rehabilitation Funds be allocated to fund the
Discount Loan Program. $50,000 will be used to buy down loans for households at 80% or less
of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area median income and $30,000 will be used to buy down
loans for households at 80% to 115% of the median income ($51,000 to $73,140 annual income).
General terms for the loans will be as follows:
• Maximum amount of the loan will be $35,000.
• Loans will be available to households with incomes of $73,140 or less.
• Eligible homes must be single family owner occupied constructed prior to 1956.
• Maximum loan term will be 20 years.
Funding the Discount Loan Program will enable the city to leverage a considerable amount of
money with a relatively small amount of money. With the $80,000 allocation, using an average
loan size of $10,000, the City could assist with approximately 84 loans totaling over $840,000 in
162
home improvement loans for St. Louis Park residents. Under this scenario the average discount
amount per loan will be $800.00.
On August 11, 1999 the Housing Authority Board authorized the Chairman and Executive
Director to sign a contract with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to administer the
MN Housing Finance Agency’s (MHFA) Discount Loan Program with the understanding that the
City Council will authorize the allocation of $80,000 of Housing Rehabilitation Funds. CEE is
an approved MHFA lender with extensive experience originating and administrating the Greater
Minnesota Fix-Up Fund, Community Fix-Up Fund and Discount Loan Programs, it is an
independent non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation. The Authority will pay CEE an administrative fee
of $125 per loan for each loan closed and sold under the program.
The City will provide general administrative oversight and marketing activities to ensure the
program addresses identified housing goals. City goals addressed through the program include:
• Increase city rehabilitation loan funds (Vision St. Louis Park)
• Encourage remodeling of homes (Vision St. Louis Park)
• Create more move-up housing (Strategic Plan)
• Encourage public/private partnerships for home maintenance to develop financial incentives
or to facilitate private investment in the City’s housing stock (Strategic Plan)
• Strengthen neighborhoods and neighborhood amenities to encourage residents to stay and
reinvest in St. Louis Park (Strategic Plan)
By utilizing the Discount Loan Program, the City eliminates the risk of owning and servicing the
loan. MHFA is essentially purchasing the loan from CEE and the City is providing the
applicable discount. Since MHFA is purchasing the loan, they are also servicing the loan and
assuming all the risk. Initially CEE assumes the risk until the loan is purchased by MHFA. Once
the loan is purchased, CEE will invoice the City for the discount plus the administrative fee.
CEE has also applied to MHFA for an additional $50,000 to enhance the City’s capacity to fund
this program. These funds would be targeted to qualifying homeowners with incomes less than
80% of the Twin Cities Median income. We will know the results of this effort in October of
this year.
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
163
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11d*
Meeting of September , 1999
11d.* Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire
suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 3565 Wooddale
Avenue South.
Recommended
Action
Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and
special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 3565 Wooddale
Avenue South and directing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute a special assessment agreement with the property
owner.
Background:
David Fellman, owner of the commercial building at 3565 Wooddale Avenue South has
requested that the City authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system
for the building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
Analysis:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing
buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire
suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public
health, safety and welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system in this building because of a
change in occupancy classification. The UnPainted Place is in the process of remodeling the
building and will be moving their offices in once construction is completed. The building
currently has no fire sprinkling system. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install a
system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on
the proposed work the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property
owner has petitioned to the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and
specially assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by
City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $38,295.00. An
Administrative Fee of $150.00 will be added to the special assessment.
Staff has determined the adequate funds are available through the Special Assessment
Construction Fund.
Prepared by: John A. Lindstrom, Fire Marshal
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
164
RESOLUTION NO. 99-107
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT
THE UNPAINTED PLACE, 3565 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at 3565 Wooddale Avenue South (“Benefited
Property”) (has) have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for
the installation of a fire sprinkler system in their commercial building on the Benefited Property;
and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) (has) have agreed to waive their right to a public
hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner(s) requesting the approval and special
assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire sprinkler
system is accepted at $38,295.00.
4. The Property Owner(s) (has) have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing,
notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through special assessment over a ten (10) year period at seven percent (7%)
interest.
165
6. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any other
documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and the special
assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
166
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11e*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11e.* Bid Tabulation: Park Commons Demolition/Site Restoration – City
Project No. 98-14
This report considers awarding a contract for the Park Commons
demolition/site restoration to Kevitt Excavating, Inc.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Kevitt Excavating, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder for the Park Commons demolition/site
restoration and to authorize execution of a contract with the
firm in the amount of $172,891.00.
Background: Bids were received on August 31, 1999 for the Park Commons demolition/site
restoration project. This project includes the demolition of 15 houses, one (1) house/studio, two
(2) commercial buildings, and grading and seeding of the disturbed sites. The Bunny’s site will
be paved to provide additional parking. Advertisements for bids were published in the St. Louis
Park Sun-Sailor on August 18, 1999 and in the Construction Bulletin on August 20, and 27,
1999. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Kevitt Excavating, Inc. $172,891.00
Veit & Company $178,680.00
Landwehr Construction, Inc. $199,300.00
Ceres Environmental $256,000.00
USD – Minnesota LLC $257,566.00
* Farr Construction $397,000.00
* Bid is automatically rejected, as this bid did not comply with the bidding requirements.
No Bid Bond was submitted with the bid.
Evaluation of Bids: A total of six (6) companies submitted bids. A review of the bids indicates
Kevitt Excavating, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Kevitt Excavating, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed a number of home demolition/site restoration projects throughout the City. Staff has
determined that Kevitt Excavating, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid and recommends a
contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $172,891.00.
Financial Considerations: Funding for the Park Commons demolition/site restoration project is
from the Economic Development Authority (EDA) Fund.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
167
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11f*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11f.* Bid Tabulation: City-Wide Random Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk
Repair Work – City Project No. 99-04
This report considers awarding a contract for City-wide random concrete
curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Standard Sidewalk, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $70,381.00.
Background: Bids were received on August 31, 1999 for City-wide random curb and gutter and
sidewalk repair. Advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on
August 25, 1999 and in the Construction Bulletin on August 20, and 27, 1999. A summary of the
bid results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $ 70,381.00
Knish Construction Company,
Inc.
$ 82,989.25
Gunderson Brothers Cement $ 88,374.25
Ron Kassa Construction $ 88,821.00
Engineer’s Estimate $ 90,030.00
Evaluation of Bids: A total of four (4) companies submitted bids. A review of the bids
indicates Standard Sidewalk, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Standard Sidewalk, Inc. has
satisfactorily constructed a number of similar projects in St. Louis Park. Staff has determined
that Standard Sidewalk, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid and recommends a contract be
awarded to the firm in the amount of $70,381.00.
Financial Considerations: Funding for this City-wide random curb and gutter and sidewalk
repair is from the 1999 Public Works Operations Budget. No special assessments or other
funding sources are proposed for this project.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
168
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11g*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11g.* Bid Tabulation: Flood Problem Area 20A – Grading, Base, Storm Sewer,
Curb and Gutter, and Bituminous Paving – City Project No. 99-06
This report considers awarding a contract for street, curb and gutter and storm
sewer work to correct flooding problems in area 20A, located at W. 41st Street and
Wooddale Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to designate Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $90,661.75.
Background: Bids were received on August 31, 1999 for street, curb and gutter and storm
sewer work. Advertisement for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on August
25, 1999 and in the Construction Bulletin on August 20, and 27, 1999. A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
Contractor Bid Amount
Thomas & Sons Construction,
Inc.
$ 90,661.75
Hardrives, Inc. $102,367.30
Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. $110,357.00
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $118,194.80
Engineer’s Estimate $ 96,500.00
Evaluation of Bids: A total of four (4) companies submitted bids. A review of the bids
indicates Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Thomas & Sons
Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed a number of projects in St. Louis Park. Staff has
determined that Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid and
recommends a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $90,661.75.
Financial Considerations: It is proposed that this improvement be funded by the Sewer Utility
Infrastructure Fund. Should the Council establish a Storm Water Utility, the funds could be
reimbursed.
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
169
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11h*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11h.* Award Contract for E9-1-1/Radio System Upgrade
This report summarizes the improvements necessary to equip the City’s Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for Year 2000 readiness and system integrity, and
extend the life of the system.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to award contract for E9-1-1/Radio System Upgrade to
the sole bidder, Capitol Communications, for the amount of
$136,897.15.
Background:
In August of 1998 the City conducted a review of radio and 9-1-1 systems. The consulting
engineer, Len Koehnen, developed a 3-phase plan to upgrade and replace certain system
components over a five-year period. This report addresses the Phase I upgrade necessary to
extend the life of the system and prevent potential Year 2000 (Y2K) problems in the dispatch
consoles and E9-1-1 telephone equipment.
An RFP for Phase I Console and E911 Phone System Work was published in June of 1999. One
firm, Capitol Communications, bid the project. Their proposal meets the requirements set forth
in the RFP. The initial bid amount was $165,147.02. Further negotiation between staff and the
vendor resulted in a final bid amount of $136,987.15.
The project will be funded primarily from the St. Louis Park/Golden Valley 911 Fund and FEMA
funds designated to address Y2K compliance issues. Smaller portions of the project cost will
come out of existing St. Louis Park Police and Golden Valley Public Safety operating budgets.
Primary Issues to Consider:
• Why is this project necessary at this time?
The E9-1-1 system has Y2K problems that could result in data failure. This means that the
dispatchers might not receive the location data for 9-1-1 calls. The current equipment was
acquired from Golden Valley at the time of the dispatch consolidation in 1993. In addition
to Y2K problems, the equipment has exceeded its useful life and occasionally malfunctions.
These conditions warrant replacement of the system as soon as possible.
The PC’s that run the radio system are past obsolescence and have Y2K issues. They were
installed in 1993 and have been running 24 hours a day. In addition to the Y2K problems,
the processors will not support the newer technology that is the industry standard.
170
The 9-1-1 and radio equipment is not synchronized for legal time. In legal disputes, the
E911 Center should have its time traceable to the National Bureau of Standards time. This
should be done in Phase I of the replacement program.
Completing this phase of the replacement project now will protect the City against potential
Y2K problems and extend the life of the dispatch center equipment.
Attachments: Bid quotation, CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
171
Attachment A
CAPITOL Communications
Division of CAPITOL ELECTRONICS, INC.
836 North Prior * St. Paul, MN 55104 *
(651) 646-2511 * FAX (651) 644-4598
Saint Louis Park Police AUGUST 16,1999
ATTN:
HEATHER ALEX, PSAP MANAGER
Products
Quotation #
08-16-99-301
Office: 612/924-2122 Estimated
Equipment
Delivery
Fax: 612/924-2676 120 DAYS OR
LESS
Description: MODIFICATIONS
TO BID
FROM 8/12
MEETING
MATERIALS
QUANTITY ITEM NUMBER DESCRIPTION PRICE TOTAL
1 BID TOTAL ORIGINAL BID 7/21/99 $165,147.02 $165,147.02
1 4100 DELETE ALL SECTION 4 ITEMS ($13,613.75) ($13,613.75)
1 9910 REDUCE SALES TAX ($766.59) ($766.59)
1 3210 DELETE SPECTRACOM NETCLOCK ($4,781.18) ($4,781.18)
1 3210 ADD ESE TIME SYSTEM $2,935.00 $2,935.00
1 9910 REDUCE SALES TAX ($120.00) ($120.00)
3 3218 REWIRE ZETRON INSTANT RECALL $75.00 $225.00
RECORDERS TO UNSELECT AUDIO
1 3300 RECONFIGURE TELEPHONE SYSTEM ($4,590.00) ($4,590.00)
1 3356 INCREASE TRADE-IN ALLOWANCE ($6,000.00) ($6,000.00)
1 9910 REDUCE SALES TAX ($688.35) ($688.35)
1 9002 ADJUST BOND COST ($300.00) ($300.00)
1 9004 ADJUST PROJECT MGMT COST ($350.00) ($350.00)
1 9008 ADJUST SHIPPING COST ($200.00) ($200.00)
New Bid Total $136,897.15
LABOR / INSTALLATION
QTY DESCRIPTION EACH TOTAL
Labor total incl
TERMS: PER BID SPECIFICATIONS Sales Tax incl
Freight incl
License Fee
Total Amount $136,897.15
Prepared by: Alan J. Pahl Accepted:
President Date:
172
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11i*
Meeting of September 7, 1999
11i.* Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)
As a recipient of a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant award, the St.
Louis Park Police Department is requesting a disbursement of $16,818.00 in grant
funds from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve grant fund award.
Background:
The Minnesota Department of Economic Security has approved the City of St. Louis Park’s
application for funding under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program
(JAIBG) in the amount of $16,818.00. The purpose of the JAIBG Program is to provide
resources for accountability-based programs.
Grant funds will be disbursed to the Viking Council, Boy Scouts of America to assist in funding
the juvenile diversion program in St. Louis Park. This program will facilitate community-based
intervention for juvenile offenders involved in certain categories of crime and disorder. The
Viking Council Diversion Program is supported by the Hennepin County Attorneys Office. The
grant period is July 1 1999 through June 30, 2000.
Attachments: Grant Award Document on file in clerk’s office
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
173
RESOLUTION NO. 99-108
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Police Department has been awarded a Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security in
the amount of $16,818.00; and
WHEREAS, the State requires the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the grant
agreement and authorizing its execution;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the community
policing grant agreement and authorizes the City Manager and Chief of Police to execute the
agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 7, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk