HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/06/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular1
6:15 p.m. - Board and Commission Discussion
6:30 p.m. - Special Meeting - Hutchinson Spur
7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 2, 1998
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of May 18, 1998
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. City Council Study Session meeting of May 11, 1998
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. Sponsorship of grant application to State of Minnesota Department of Trade
and Economic Development.
This report considers the sponsorship of a grant application to the State of
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development on behalf of the
Lincoln Del and Baking Company for financing a portion of the Lincoln Baking
Company renovation project.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the
resolution and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute
a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota and a loan
agreement with the Lincoln Baking Company.
6b. Case No. 98-4-ZA
Zoning Code Text Amendment
This report considers a change to the Floodplain District (Overlay) regulations to
amend the text by adding language to address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) requirements.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing, Motion to adopt first reading of
Zoning Ordinance text amendments and set second reading for
June 15, 1998.
6c. Case No. 98-11-ZA
Zoning Code Text Amendment
Request of Jay Gans (General Growth Management, Inc.) for a text amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to allow temporary sales of agricultural commodities for up
to six months in a calendar year in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 General
Commercial, and M-X Mixed Use Zoning Districts.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to waive first reading and
set second reading for June 15, 1998
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
3
*a. Neighborhood Revitalization Commission Minutes of April 8, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*b. Human Rights Commission minutes of March 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*c. Human Rights Commission Minutes of April 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*d. Cable TV Commission Minutes of February 10, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*e. Joint Mtg minutes Planning & Park and Rec Commissions of April 15, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*f. Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*g. Minutes of BOZA April 23, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*h. Vendor Claim Report
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s)
11. New Business
11a. Excelsior Boulevard Median Islands from Trunk Highway 100 to Methodist
Hospital Entrance - Project No. 98-02
4
This report considers the construction of median islands on Excelsior Boulevard
from Trunk Highway 100 to Methodist Hospital entrance and execution of a
Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County authorizing the City to perform the
work.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting the City
Engineer’s Report, establishing Project No. 98-02, ordering
Project No. 98-02, approving plans and specifications,
authorizing receipt of bids, and approving a Cooperative
Agreement with Hennepin County.
11b. Ground Lease, Development and Joint Use Agreement with Benilde-St.
Margaret’s School.
Council is being asked to authorize execution of an agreement between the City and
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School (BSM) which would allow BSM to provide funding
for the construction of six new tennis courts on City-owned property located at Belt
Line Boulevard and West 36th Street (Bass Lake Park).
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Ground Lease, Development and Joint Use Agreement prepared
by the City Attorney as described in the attached report.
11c*. Joint Powers Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for Bus Stop Signage.
To consider a request by the Met Council that the City perform the installation,
replacement, and maintenance of bus stop signage on their behalf.
Recommended
Action:
By consent, motion to approve the Met Council Joint Powers
Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute
the Agreement on behalf of the City.
11d*. Set Public Hearing for Revision of Water Ordinance
This request begins the process to amend ordinance section 9-113 to incorporate the
community response steps and trigger levels established in the Water Contingency
and Conservation Plan and provide for their enforcement.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to schedule a public hearing on June 15, 1998, at 7:30
p.m. for an ordinance to amend City Code section 9-113.
11e*. Traffic Study No. 530: No Parking Loading Zone in Front of 3312 Gorham
5
Avenue
This report considers “No Parking Anytime” at 3312 Gorham Avenue from a point
180 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W. and proceeding south to a
point 225 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to accept this report for filing and adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the parking restrictions described above.
11f. Confirmation of the appointment of Clint Pires as Deputy City Manager
This action confirms the appointment by the City Manager of Clint Pires to the
position of Deputy City Manager effective August 1, 1998.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Clint Pires as Deputy City
Manager effective August 1, 1998.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments
Partial
Contractor Contract No. Amount
Gorham-Oien Mechanical, Inc. Rec Center Renaissance
4110 $ 19,506.30
Ridgedale Electric, Inc. Rec Center Renaissance
4096 $ 18,638.05
Wanzek Construction, Inc. Rec Center Renaissance
4114 $ 41,848.30
Midwest Asphalt Ford Road/Shelard Pkwy
17-98 $52,281.96
Hardrives Excelsior Blvd Phase 2
14-98 $97,556.88
Action: By consent approve and authorize payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
6
Item #4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 18, 1998
1. Call to Order
Mayor Dorfman called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager gave a brief storm damage report and indicated that the City had
authorized the Public Works and Parks and Recreation crews to pick-up storm related material
hauled by residents to the street beginning May 18th through June 1st.
2. Presentation - None
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present: Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Ron Latz,
and Mayor Gail Dorfman.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of
Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Anderson); Public Works (Mr. Moore); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); and Housing
Coordinator (Ms. Brownstein).
4. Approval of Minutes
City Council meeting of May 4, 1998 - minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Study Session meeting of April 27, 1998.
With the exception of the following changes, the minutes were approved as presented: Change
Page 15, second to last paragraph to read Council discussed options to control the increase in the
number of new free walk-up service requests and agreed not to allow any additional new free
walk-up customers. Change Page 13, second to the last paragraph to read Councilmember Nelson
addressed the fiscal issue noting that the increment wouldn’t come close to covering the City’s
share and suggested reducing project costs or increasing increment.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
7
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve the
consent agenda with removal of Item 8c per Councilmember Nelson. The motion passed 6-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve
the agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearing
6a. Public Hearing: Sidewalk Construction and Street Light Installation on Louisiana
Court - Project No. 98-06.
Resolution #98-76
Carlton Moore, Public Works gave a staff report and stated that a group of property owners and
residents were present tonight to speak to Council.
Jeannie Seeley-Smith, Executive Director of Perspectives, Inc. presented a proposal written by a
newly formed consortium of all 11 owners of the apartment buildings located in Louisiana Court
(Rick Daine, Bill Christopherson, Bruce Doshes, Steve Hendrickson, John Prebarich,
Perspectives Inc, and Ira Sklader) called The C.O.U.R.T (Concerned Owners for a Unified Court)
dedicated to responsibility and trust and respectfully requested that the City Council support the
project and reward the C.O.U.R.T. CDBG funds to cover 100% of the estimated cost of proposed
project.
William Christopherson, Property Owner questioned why the City and residents felt that
Louisiana Court was a problem area. He didn’t believe that the construction of sidewalks and
street lighting would solve the problem, but rather responsible landlords who rented to
responsible tenants and managed behavior. He stated that his tenants were not in favor of
sidewalks if it meant a rent increase and that he didn’t feel it was a justifiable expense. He
requested that the City contribute CDBG funds to cover 100% of the estimated cost of proposed
project.
John Prebarich, Property Owner indicated that he recently has made major improvements to his
property. He was not in favor of sidewalks because of the unusual traffic patterns on his
property. He said the majority of residents recently polled were in favor of lighting, but not
sidewalks. He requested that the City contribute CDBG funds to cover 100% of the estimated
cost of proposed project.
Rick Baine, Property Owner stated that construction of sidewalks were a low priority because
tenants usually desired to see improvements to inside amenities before outside improvements.
8
He believed the overall problem of a bad reputation originated before he was an owner, and was
due to the area not being properly managed. He stated that if the Council wanted this area to be
comparable to other areas in the city, some type of assistance program needed to be established.
Ira Sklader, Property Owner stated that he had recently invested considerable funds to building
improvements, but a large amount of work still needed to be done. He was in favor of the
addition of street lighting, desired to see name change, and believed that the dedication of the
property owners working together to address the issues of concern in Louisiana Court would
bring great change.
Jeannie Seeley-Smith, Resident believed that without the addition of sidewalks, the safety of
residents and children was in jeopardy.
Vannessa Brown, Perspectives Program Coordinator stated that many positive developments had
resulted from the organization of a Task Force and that the issue of concern for sidewalks and
street lighting originated from a survey conducted in the past. For the safety of the children and
on behalf of the tenants who were on fixed incomes, she requested that the City contribute
CDBG funds to cover 100% of the estimated cost of proposed project.
The Mayor closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned that a majority of property owners were not in favor of
the addition of sidewalks. He asked staff to clarify the need for sidewalks from a safety
standpoint and indicate the cost breakdown between the installation of street lighting and
construction of sidewalks.
Mr. Moore indicated that street lighting was 36% and side walks was 64% of the projected cost.
Councilmember Nelson believed the potential impact on rent outlined in the staff report was not
significant.
JoAnna Brownstein, Housing Coordinator briefly commented on the potential impact on the
diversity of residents.
Tom Harmening, Community Development Coordinator recommended that staff revisit the roots
of the project, review city policy and the purpose for contributing CDBG funds to this project.
He stated that staff believed this project was not the solution to the problems in Louisiana Court,
but only a small part of a number of different things that need to be done to address needs in the
neighborhood. He indicated that street lighting would be a priority.
Councilmember Latz stated that that original intention of making funds available through a
combination of special assessments and CDBG funding for projects was sound. He commended
property owners for taking the time to come together in response to this project. He supported
the construction of sidewalks for the overall safety of the residents and indicated that a City
contribution of CDBG funds to cover 50% of the estimated cost of proposed project would be in
9
line with established guidelines and would minimize the cost to all involved. He would like to
see property owners take advantage of additional community resources available for investment
in their properties and maintained that affordable housing in the area was a priority.
Councilmember Sanger commended property owners for recent property improvements, but
believed the request that the City contribute CDBG funds to cover 100% of the estimated cost of
proposed project was unrealistic, because concentrating that amount of resources in one small
area would short-change the rest of the city. She believed that the steps outlined in the proposal
were vague and if increased funding was approved by the city then demonstrable and concrete
steps to really help the safety and decrease criminal issues in the area would need to be
established. She suggested a children’s play area be considered to address the safety concern and
recommended more study be conducted by the Task Force and Council at study session.
Councilmember Young concurred with Councilmember Sanger. He believed the request that the
City contribute CDBG funds to cover 100% of the estimated cost of proposed project was
unreasonable. He didn’t believe the absence of sidewalks in Louisiana Court proposed any
increased safety issues for children and pointed out the existence of a park located in the
neighborhood. He recommended taking this back to study session and felt no increase in the
amount of CDBG funding for the project should be approved .
Councilmember Jacobs believed sidewalks were important for the entire neighborhood and was
in favor of the City contributing CDBG funds to cover 50% of the estimated cost of the proposed
project.
Councilmember Nelson suggested that property owners develop some covenants of property
management in exchange for an increased contribution of CDBG funds.
Mayor Gail Dorfman stated that the city was in favor of building strong neighborhoods and
indicated that improvements at Louisiana Court would take a large commitment from the city,
the residents and property owners. She commended property owners for their efforts and stated
that the City’s contribution of CDBG funds to cover 50% of the estimated cost of the proposed
project was reasonable.
Councilmember Latz commented on changes to the CDGB policy in regard to proposals
solicited. He stated that the purpose was to concentrate resources and see measurable
improvements. He was in favor of the City contributing CDBG funds to cover 50% of the
estimated cost of the proposed project and that this was reasonable given the resources available.
Ms. Brownstein, Housing Coordinator commented on the funds committed for multi-family
rehabilitation and indicated that the funds have not yet been allocated to a particular project.
Councilmember Nelson didn’t believe availability of funds was the issue. He believed that there
was an opportunity for property owners to work together to make improvements to the
neighborhood. He preferred to defer the issue and challenged property owners to establish
covenants looking to the future of the area and buildings.
10
Mayor Dorfman asked Councilmember Latz to clarify how the Task Force process and the
Property Owners Consortium activities fit together. Councilmember Latz explained that the goal
of the Task Force was to establish a vision of what those who have an interest in the area want
the area to become. He said that he felt the request of the Property Owners was consistent with
Task Force goals.
Councilmember Sanger asked staff to clarify any impact a delay in the construction schedule
would cause. Mr. Moore indicated that there would be no impact on construction.
Mayor Gail Dorfman commented on the importance of Council giving property owners and the
neighborhood a clear signal that the City was willing to do their part in making improvements to
Louisiana Courts.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt the
resolution ordering Project No. 98-06, sidewalk construction and street light installation on
Louisiana Court, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. The motion
passed 6-0.
6b. Assessment Hearing for Project 98-06 at Louisiana Court
There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Dorfman closed the public hearing with the right of
the Council to reopen it at a future date.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to adopt the
resolution establishing the assessment of Project No. 98-06. He requested that staff bring the
issue forward to a Study Session and that it be returned to City Council on June 15th for further
consideration of additional allocation of 1998 CDBG funds.
Councilmember Latz withdrew the motion.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to defer
consideration of the assessment of Project No. 98-06 until the City Council Meeting of June
15th. The motion passed 6-0.
6c. Resolution amending the projected use of funds for the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program.
Resolution #98-77
The Mayor closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date.
11
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt a
Resolution amending the projected use of funds for the 1997 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program. The motion passed 6-0.
6d. Sholom Community Alliance (SCA)
Special Permit Amendments
3620 & 3630 Phillips Parkway South
Case Number 98-10-CUP
Resolutions 98-78 & 98-79
Gail Nelson, Architect with Nelson Germane Partnership was present to answer questions of the
Council.
The Mayor closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt resolutions
approving the special permit amendments for 3620 & 3630 Phillips Parkway South subject to the
conditions included in the resolutions. The motion passed 6-0.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Ordinance Creating the Neighborhood Revitalization Commission
Ordinance # 2119-98
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
second reading of the ordinance amendment, adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and
authorize publication. The motion passed 6-0.
8c. Resolution Authorizing Transfers from the General Fund to the Information
Technologies and Parks Improvement Funds for Future Capital Improvements
Councilmember Nelson asked that staff address a concern that Pink Business Interiors raised
with the configuration of its parking lot verses its median and how it would accommodate truck
access. He suggested that Pink Business Interiors be allowed two weeks to review concern. He
also indicated that the preliminary drawing of Brunswick and Dakota Avenues had paint stripes
and from the neighborhood standpoint actual medians would be most beneficial for residents.
Mr. Moore, Public Works commented on the appropriate steps to approve the project and execute
the agreement and indicated that Pink Business Interiors was requesting time to have a traffic
consultant review options. Mr. Rardin, Director of Public Works, explained the use of the
proposed median as it related to the traffic flow and safety of pedestrians.
12
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to delay the
decision to adopt the resolution establishing Project No. 98-02 until June 2nd. The motion
passed 6-0.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1998
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
b. Housing Authority Minutes of April 8, 1998
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
c. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of April 15, 1998
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
d. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted report for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointments
Councilmember Young suggested that the applications that indicated BOZA as a preference be
considered for appointment at the next City Council Meeting.
11. New Business
11a. Walk-Up Service - Waste Management
Mr. Rardin gave a brief report of the options being considered for addressing the large volume of
free walk-up customers and recommended Option A as an immediate solution to the problem.
Councilmember Jacobs questioned the time frame proposed to notify customers that free walk-up
service was being discontinued.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager clarified that Option A considered immediately discontinuing adding
new free walk-up service, and as of August 1st sufficient time would be allowed to notify people
currently receiving free-walk up service that they would have to start to pay if continued walk-up
was desired.
Councilmember Latz stated that in past, the cost of free walk up-service was included in the
regular service fees and at the present the service was only provided to residents who specifically
wanted it and desired to cover the cost of the service.
13
Councilmember Young reiterated that the high volume was definitely not the norm for a city of
St. Louis Park’s population.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the reaction of residents notified of discontinuation
of free walk-up service and believed it would add disruption to the community. She preferred
not to take action, until waste management had shown that they could provide a higher quality of
service.
Mayor Gail Dorfman commented that the unexpected high volume of walk up service may have
been a reason for the lower quality of service. Councilmember Sanger believed there was no
concrete evidence that this was the case.
Councilmember Nelson noted that the city recently sent a letter to Waste Management that
expressed Council’s concerns about the level of service and expectations for improvement.
Mr. Meyer indicated that the majority of the problems reported were related to walk-up service
and that staff has been working with Waste Management to solve the problems. The results of
these efforts should be seen fairly soon.
Councilmember Jacobs indicated that discontinuing new free walk-up service should occur now
to prevent the problem from escalating further.
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to authorize
option A as a solution to the walk-up issue. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Sanger
opposed).
11b. Renewal of the Property and Liability Insurance Program through the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for 1998/99
By consent, Council approved the insurance program as submitted by the League of Minnesota
Cities Insurance Trust for the period 4/1/98 through 4/1/99.
11c. Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement
By consent, Council approved the Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement and authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
11d. Amendments to the By-laws of the Neighborhood Revitalization Commission (NRC)
By consent, Council approved the amendment to the by-laws of the Neighborhood Revitalization
Commission.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14
Partial
Contractor Project No. Contract No. Amount
Anchor Fence of MN, Inc.Rec Center
Renaissance
C36 4105 $ 10,896.50
By consent, Council approved and authorized payments.
14. Communications - None
15. Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was made by Mayor Dorfman and seconded by Councilmember Jacobs.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. The motion passed 6-0.
City Clerk Mayor
15
Item #4b
Unofficial Minutes
City Council Study Session
May 11, 1998
7:00 p.m.
The meeting convened at 7:07 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Jim Brimeyer and Ron Latz, and
Mayor Gail Dorfman.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Jeremiah) and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen).
1. Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Study
Council, Staff and Study Consultant Greg Ingraham met to discuss the Highway 7/Louisiana Ave
Task Force recommendations for the Study Area, to review public comments regarding the
recommendations and to determine next steps in the process.
Mayor Dorfman began by ensuring the public in attendance that Council was indeed sensitive to
the input they had received to date from the public. She felt there had been many opportunities
for the community to participate and thanked all for their contributions to the process
Eric Rahman, a student at Peter Hobart Elementary School presented a model he had created for
the Imagination/Inventor’s fair that had recently been held at his school. The model very
creatively depicted the Oak Park Village area soccer fields on one side, and on the other side
depicted what the area may look like should it be developed for commercial purposes. He also
expressed his wish to Council that as much area as possible be left for recreation activities.
Mayor Dorfman pointed out that though other groups such as the Task Force, Planning and Parks
and Rec Commissions had discussed this previously, this was indeed the beginning of the City
Council process. She said there were many issues to balance and that this was Council’s first
opportunity to discuss the recommendations from the Task Force.
Ms. Jeremiah presented a chronology of recent events regarding this issue including information
about Task Force activities, commission meetings and public open house discussions that had
been held to solicit information from various members of the community. She stated that there
were a number of options for Council at this point and introduced Greg Ingraham, the City’s
consultant for this project.
Mr. Ingraham presented the revised concept plan from the Task Force and pointed out differences
between this plan and the city’s existing Comprehensive Plan. He compared the differences in
16
acreages allocated to housing, commercial development and park and open space in the two
plans. He then showed Council where revisions had been made to the Task Force’s original
concept plan and stated that these changes had come about as a result of discussions with and
input from the public. He also clarified the position of the Task Force in relation to the office
bldg shown in the northwest quadrant stating that the location of a building in that area was not
the first choice of the Task Force but had been retained as a possible to increase the amount of
parking space available to park users.
Tom Harmening pointed out that any park development would be expensive and that the
inclusion of commercial space in this area could be a possible source of revenue to fund those
improvements.
Mayor Dorfman asked approximately how much the City currently spends on environmental
remediation each year on the site. Mr. Harmening said that it was between $400,000 and
$550,000 per year. Mayor Dorfman pointed out that this is a Federal Superfund site, but no
federal funds are allocated for on-going remediation costs. Mr. Harming clarified that though
Reilly Tar was a party to the remediation agreement their contribution had been in capital
expenses which were incurred many years ago. The remaining remediation costs are carried by
the City alone.
Councilmember Latz said that he felt the request for a medical office building to be located
somewhere in the area had been driving the time line for this study. He also wondered if the
amount of parking for soccer games was really needed. He asked if a shuttle from the south side
of Hwy 7 where the medical building was proposed to be built would be feasible.
Mr. Ingraham said that parking was definitely needed near the fields.
Mr. Latz proposed that Walker Street be re-routed to the north of where the intersection is
currently located to allow for increased parking on the south side of Walker. He also said that he
had clearly heard that residents to the west of the site did not want the forested area to be
developed.
Councilmember Nelson said that he had taken a walk in the forested area and that the area is a
habitat for wildlife. He was surprised that the area was so densely wooded. He did not believe
the economic benefit from development would offset the loss of forested land. He also felt soil
borings should be done prior to any further plans for development. He was concerned that the
cost of development would be too high. He suggested that the only action that should be taken at
the present time would be modifications to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to see
further development of the site delayed.
Councilmember Nelson also asked if the traffic lights at Lake and Walker were truly necessary.
Mr. Meyer said that both the Task Force and Engineering Division felt signals were necessary to
control safety at the intersection. Ms. Jeremiah pointed out the intersection had a high traffic
accident incidence.
17
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that in order for the area to be the “Crown Jewel” of St. Louis
Park, it would need to have multiple uses. He felt that Council should consider a variety of
public uses such as sculpture garden, recreation area, etc. He agreed that any development
should allow for a sight line from Highway 7. He also felt that once desired uses for the area was
determined, the public should be asked if they are willing to fund improvements.
Mr. Harmening reiterated what he believed Council was saying. He suggested that changes be
made to the Comprehensive plan to 1) leave as much open space as possible, 2) Remove housing
and office development from the northwest quadrant and 3) look at the possible movement of the
Walker/Louisiana Ave S intersection to the north.
Mr. Meyer stated that he felt the absence of a Parks and Recreation Director was a concern and
suggested that planning for park improvement be delayed until a future time.
Mr. Harmening suggested that Council also consider the rezoning of the area along with
suggested changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Commercial/Recreational Vehicle Screening
The City Council discussed proposed screening provisions for commercial and recreational
vehicles parked in residential areas. Central to the discussion was the issue of enforcement and
interpretation of the requirements by the public and enforcement by Inspection staff. Council
viewed illustrations of side and rear yard screening options and asked that staff bring the
screening provisions forward to a future City Council meeting.
3. Community Outreach Coordinator Position
At its study session of April 13, 1998, Council considered the creation of a part time position
designed to provide staff support to neighborhood organizations and the Neighborhood
Revitalization Commission (NRC). Following that discussion staff had identified several related
activities where the City has not been able to commit the staff time necessary to meet community
needs.
Ms. Larsen and Mr. Harmening presented to Council a revised job description which expanded
the position to a full-time Community Outreach Coordinator Position. Following a brief
discussion, Councilmembers present endorsed the concept. Staff informed Council that they
would begin recruitment activities.
4. Deputy City Manager Position Review
Mr. Meyer and Council discussed the role and responsibility of the Deputy City Manager
position and reviewed Council expectations for the position. Mr. Meyer explained that the duties
of this position varied widely, but was intended to focus principally on Human Resources and
Organizational Development issues. Discussion also took place regarding the role of the Deputy
18
relative to handling Councilmember requests for assistance; constituent issues; acting in the
absence of the City Manager and general areas of direct responsibility
5. Communications
Councilmember Nelson informed the group about a constituent concern regarding smoking in
City parks. All present felt that to ban smoking in outdoor areas would be overly restrictive and
did not wish to pursue the issue.
Mr. Meyer reminded Council of a meeting with Park Nicollet to take place on Wednesday, May
27th.
Mayor Dorfman informed Council of a memorial service for Evelyn Raymond to take place.
Council briefly discussed the Parktacular schedule and parade planning.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
19
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6a
Meeting of June 2, 1998
6a. Sponsorship of grant application to State of Minnesota Department of Trade
and Economic Development.
This report considers the sponsorship of a grant application to the State of
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development on behalf of the
Lincoln Del and Baking Company for financing a portion of the Lincoln Baking
Company renovation project.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the
resolution and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute
a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota and a loan
agreement with the Lincoln Baking Company.
Background:
In February of 1998, the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED)
invited the Lincoln Baking Company to apply for funding through the Minnesota Investment
Fund program for the renovation/expansion of the Lincoln Baking Company in St. Louis Park.
The DTED program requires the City to act as sponsor of applications to this program. Danny
Berenberg of the Lincoln Baking Company has requested the City of St. Louis Park to sponsor its
application for this project.
Mr. Berenberg has also submitted an application for a commercial rehabilitation loan through the
St. Louis Park EDA for the restaurant portion of the renovation project. That application will be
considered at the June 15, 1998 EDA meeting.
Synopsis of Minnesota Investment Fund Program
In order to use the state’s program, the City must act as a sponsor of the funding application to
DTED. In exchange for sponsoring the project, the state will make a grant to the City, which the
City must then lend to the business for the proposed project. In this case, DTED has set the
terms of the $75,000 loan at an interest rate of 3% over 5 years. Repayments of the loan
proceeds by the business are then retained by the City for future economic development projects
in the community. DTED is also seeking a funding commitment to this project from the City
through the Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program. This portion of the funding would be
approved and administered by the EDA. The Lincoln Baking Company will be seeking a
$50,000 loan through the CRLP. This proposal will be brought to the City Council on June 15,
1998 for consideration. The date for consideration of this component of the financing has been
20
set for the 15th to allow the business and private lender to complete the financing application
materials.
Overview of the Project
The project involves a major renovation of the bakery and restaurant components of the Lincoln
Del and Baking Company building. An itemization and budget estimate is attached. The
applicant expects the proposed project to cost approximately $300,000 and is proposing the
following financing sources:
Century Bank $ 75,000
City CRLP Loan $ 50,000
DTED Loan $ 75,000
Owner Equity $100,000
TOTAL $300,000
DTED funding can be used only for the bakery renovation portion of the project. CRLP Funding
will be used primarily to relocate restrooms in the building from the basement to the main level.
In addition, interior, loading facility, equipment and facade improvements will be made. The
project is also proposed to result in 15 new bakery jobs. These jobs will pay in the range of
$15.00 per hour and include benefits. The DTED program requires that the company hire the
new positions within three months of completing of the project.
Next Step
DTED’s funding award date is June 30, 1998. The proposed project cannot proceed until after
this date. The application for the Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program funding will be
considered on June 15, 1998. If the CRLP funding is approved, staff would expect to arrange a
financing closing date in mid- July.
Attachments:
• Resolution
• Project Budget
• Grant application (not included but available for inspection in the Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Dave Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator
21
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
TO SPONSOR AN APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND ON BEHALF OF
THE LINCOLN BAKING COMPANY.
BE IT RESOLVED that City of St. Louis Park act as the legal sponsor for project contained in
the Business and Community Development Application to be submitted on June 3, 1998 and that
the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Trade and
Economic Development for funding of this project on behalf of The Lincoln Baking Company.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park has not incurred any costs and has
not entered into any written agreements to purchase property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park has not violated any Federal,
State, or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other
unlawful or corrupt practice.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state, the City of St.
Louis Park, may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced
projects, and that the City of St. Louis Park certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws
and regulations as stated in all contract agreements and described on the Compliances Section
(FP-20) of the Business and Community Development Application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park has obtained credit reports and
credit information from government and private credit reporting agencies and the Lincoln Baking
Company and. Upon review by the City of St. Louis Park and the City’s and Economic
Development Authority’s legal counsel, no adverse findings or concerns regarding, but not
limited to, tax liens, judgments, court actions, and filings with state, federal and other regulatory
agencies were identified. Failure to disclose any such adverse information could result in
revocation or other legal action.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager, or their successors
in office, are hereby authorized to execute such agreements, and amendments thereto, as are
necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park on June 2, 1998.
22
Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
23
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6b
Meeting of June 2, 1998
6b. Case No. 98-4-ZA
Zoning Code Text Amendment
This report considers a change to the Floodplain District (Overlay) regulations to
amend the text by adding language to address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) requirements.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing, Motion to adopt first reading of
Zoning Ordinance text amendments and set second reading for
June 15, 1998.
Background:
On April 6, 1998, the City Council reviewed a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
change text and the Zoning Map relative to floodplain.
The amendments were to accomplish two things:
• Amend the Zoning map consistant with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
map amendments to eliminate certain properties from the floodplain and add others.
• Change the text to comply with the MCWD standards.
The staff report indicated that MCWD recently changed its regulations to require that all new
developments within the floodplain have their ground floor elevation at least two feet above the
100-year flood elevation. Upon further review of both the requirements of MCWD and of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the text amendment proposed on April 6,
1998, did not adequately address both agencies’ requirements. On May 4, 1998, the City Council
subsequently adopted only changes to the floodplain map.
On May 6, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of alternative
language that does address regulations of both DNR and MCWD.
Analysis:
The DNR and MCWD have separate standards relating to requirements for construction in the
floodplain. The floodplain provisions of the current Zoning Ordinance were written according to
DNR standards. DNR standards require that for buildings constructed in the floodplain, the
lowest floor elevation must be 1 foot above the regulatory 100-year flood elevation. The DNR
has defined this elevation at the “regulatory flood protection elevation” which is also defined in
the Zoning Ordinance.
24
The MCWD also has developed floodplain standards. The MCWD standards
are based upon window and door openings, not “lowest floor elevation.” Recently, the MCWD
changed its standard requiring that for new construction all building openings must be two feet
above the regulatory 100-year flood plain. For existing buildings and additions to existing
buildings, the lowest opening may remain at one foot above the 100-year flood plain elevation.
The revised MCWD standard has been included in the City’s Water Resource Management Plan
and will be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City is required to comply with both the DNR standard and the MCWD standard.
Consequently, changes must be made to the Zoning Ordinance which are different from those the
City Council reviewed on April 20. Attached to this report are recommended changes to the
Ordinance.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
25
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:5-9.4D.2 FLOOD PLAIN TEXT
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 98-4-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:5-9.4.D Flood Fringe
District is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14:5-9.4.D.2
b. For all new structures constructed after June 15, 1998, building opening
elevations shall be 2 feet above the regulatory 100-year flood elevation.
For all structures existing on June 15, 1998, and additions to structures
existing on June 15, 1998, building openings shall be at 1 foot above the
regulatory 100-year flood elevation.
Renumber existing b, c, and d to c, d, and e.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 98-4-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution
City Manager City Attorney
26
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6c
Meeting of June 2, 1998
6c. Case No. 98-11-ZA
Zoning Code Text Amendment
Request of Jay Gans (General Growth Management, Inc.) for a text amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to allow temporary sales of agricultural commodities for up
to six months in a calendar year in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 General
Commercial, and M-X Mixed Use Zoning Districts.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to waive first reading and
set second reading for June 15, 1998
Background:
The applicant is currently operating a “farmer’s market” selling produce and greenhouse plants on the parking
lot at the southeast corner of Knollwood Mall Shopping Center. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows this
type of operation to occur as a temporary use for not more than 45 days within any calendar year. The applicant
has requested that temporary sales of agricultural commodities be allowed for up to 6 months per calendar year
with added conditions. The applicant has submitted ordinance language which he feels would address concerns
related to parking and circulation when agricultural commodities are sold in parking lots of existing businesses.
The Planning Commission reviewed the application on May 6, 1998, and recommended approval with several
added conditions to those proposed by the applicant.
Analysis:
What are the Zoning Ordinance requirements for text amendments?
The Zoning Ordinance provides instructions for Ordinance amendments. Initiation of any amendment can be
made only by one of the following:
1. A petition of the owner or owners of the actual property, the zoning of which is proposed to be
changed.
2. A recommendation of the Planning Commission.
3. Action by the City Council.
The application requests that an amendment allowing the 6-month sale of agricultural commodities to include
three zoning districts: C-1, C-2, and MX. Technically, the applicant can only request the change to the C-2
General Commercial District, since that is the district where the applicant is located. The Planning Commission
recommended that the use also be permitted in the C-1 and MX Zoning Districts with the same conditions.
27
Are the products and type of operation desirable in the community?
The applicant (Sweet Corn & More) has been selling produce and greenhouse plants within the parking lot of
the Knollwood Mall Shopping Center for the last 5 years. This operation has been successful, offering a popular
product to residents. The Zoning Ordinance recognizes that the sale of agricultural commodities is desired by
the community, and allows the use for a period up to 45 days.
“Farmer’s market” type of operations used to be primarily an avenue to sell to the public fruits and vegetables at
harvest time. The 45-day period currently allowed by the Zoning Ordinance was adequate for this purpose.
However, these markets are very popular in many communities, and have expanded by now offering a variety of
products depending upon time of year and availability. Many greenhouse products, including flowers and
vegetable plants are offered in the spring extending the length of time these uses wish to operate.
What are the impacts of this type of use?
The primary negative impacts this use creates are related to parking, circulation, traffic, and aesthetics.
The language proposed by the applicant does address parking, circulation, and traffic for both the principle use
and the temporary use. This is accomplished by limiting the amount of space the temporary use can occupy, by
requiring a site plan to be approved by the City, and by requiring a letter from the principle use supporting the
temporary use. The Planning Commission has recommended adding a provision which would require the
temporary use to terminate if congestion becomes an problem.
The applicant has proposed that parking not be allowed on a public boulevard. The Planning Commission and
staff recommend that this provision be removed. There is a growing community interest to include on-street
parking as part of an overall parking requirement where appropriate. In the case of Park Commons, on-street
parking will be available for all retail uses and temporary uses.
28
What are likely aesthetic impacts?
Aesthetic issues are related to signage and the condition of temporary structures. Language proposed by the
applicant would suggest that all signage must comply with the Zoning Ordinance. This potentially could allow
for signs which have a sign face up to 300 square feet for the temporary use. For this reason, the Planning
Commission recommended adding a provision which would prohibit free standing signs greater than sixteen
square feet in size and limiting the location of advertising signs to the tent or canopy. Staff would also suggest
adding a provision which limits the maximum sign face to 100 square feet.
The Planning Commission also added a recommendation that would require tents and canopies to be in good
repair.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
29
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 14:4-12 TEMPORARY USES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Case No. 98-11-ZA)
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 14:4-12.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
F. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES - NOT MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS
G. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES - UP TO SIX (6) MONTHS
The sale of agricultural commodities, including seasonal farmers’ markets, greenhouses, and
gardening supplies, which are offered for sale directly from the grower/producer, shall be
allowed as a temporary use provided the following standards are satisfied:
1. A Site Plan must be submitted to the City.
2. The temporary use shall be located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District,
C-2 Commercial District, or the M-X Mixed Use District.
3. The owner of the property on which the temporary use is located shall submit a
letter in support of the use to the Zoning Administrator.
4. In the temporary use the temporary use is located on a surface parking lot or area,
such use shall not encumber more than ten (10) percent of the total amount of
available parking spaces.
5. Products shall be limited to produce, vegetables, flowers, plants and related items.
6. Sales activities may be conducted within a required yard provided the area is
paved and the activity does not interfere with parking, traffic circulation or
emergency access. Temporary sales on unpaved landscaped areas is prohibited.
7. Tents, stands, and other similar temporary structures may be utilized, provided
they are clearly identified on the submitted plan and provided that it is determined
30
that they will not impair parking capacity, emergency access, or the safe and
efficient movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on or off the site.
8. The submitted plan shall clearly demonstrate that adequate off-street parking for
the proposed temporary use can and will be provided for the duration of the
temporary use. Determination of compliance with this requirement shall include
the consideration of the nature of the temporary use and applicable parking
requirements set forth in Section 14:6-1.0. Consideration shall be given to the
parking needs and requirements of the principal uses located on the same
property. If unforeseen circulation or congestion occurs, the Zoning
Administrator may order the use to relocate on the same property or to be
removed.
9. Signage related to the temporary use shall be in compliance with the applicable
standards set forth in Section 14:6-2.0 and below:
• Freestanding signs shall not exceed 16 square feet
• All other signage shall be placed on a tent or canopy
• No sign face shall exceed 100 square feet.
Special signage for purposes of traffic direction and control may be authorized by
the Zoning Administrator.
10. The maximum time for sales activities shall be six (6) months per calendar year
per property.
11. All stands, equipment, signs and other structures shall be maintained in good
repair.
12. All stands, equipment, signs, and other structures shall be removed on the last day
of the temporary use.
Renumber existing G to H.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 98-11-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
31
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution
City Manager City Attorney
32
Item #9a*
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1998 – 7:00 P.M.
Community Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Bell, Kellene Campbell-Duerksen, Julie Hart, Dorothea Moga, Belinda
Pinney, and Tom Powers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Whitlock
STAFF PRESENT: Jan Loftus, Administrative Secretary; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary
1. Call to Order/Roll Call:
Co-chair Campbell-Duerksen called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Mrs. Belz, the Recording Secretary,
called roll. Thomas Whitlock was absent.
2. Approval of Agenda:
Co-chair Campbell-Duerksen assigned times to each agenda item and assigned a Timekeeper and Process
Observer. She then asked for any additions or changes to the agenda.
Dorothea Moga moved, seconded by Shirley Bell, to accept the agenda as presented.
3. Reports/Comments:
Commissioner Moga reported that a proposal for next year’s work plan had been developed and a
presentation will be made during that discussion item.
Mrs. Loftus thanked the Commission for including her in the meeting and gave a brief biography of her
experience with the City, both as an employee and resident. She offered to assist the Commission in any
way.
4. Approval of Minutes of March 25, 1998:
Hearing no changes, Belinda Pinney moved, seconded by Shirley Bell, to approve the minutes of the
March 25, 1998 Neighborhood Revitalization Commission Meeting as presented. The motion carried
unanimously.
33
5. Unfinished Business:
Staff Support to the NRC:
The Commission reviewed the proposed job description that was included in the packet. The
Commission agreed that the job description was comprehensive, however believed that the
position, as currently described, will require more than the anticipated eight hours a week.
Discussion continued on this topic with several questions regarding the details of the position.
Some questions the Commission raised included, but were not limited to:
* How the person’s time will be structured/spent?
* If the person’s phone line will be published?
* When the individual would be hired?
Other observations made by the Commission included that the candidate must be creative,
computer literate, possess extensive personal relations, and must possess excellent organizational
skills.
Commissioner Bell again noted the concern with the person being able to complete all duties
assigned within the estimated eight hours per week. She did believe that the eight hours was a good
starting point as long as it would be understood that the position hours could eventually be
expanded.
The Commission recommended two amendments to the job description. The first being that
position have the ability to expand hours at a later date if necessary. The second was that the
position description would include mandatory attendance to NRC meetings.
Shirley Bell moved, seconded by Dorothea Moga, to accept the proposed job description for the
Neighborhood Coordinator as amended. Motion passed unanimously.
B. Neighborhood Leaders Forum Follow-up Surveys:
There was much discussion regarding the returned surveys of the neighborhood leaders. The
Commission identified some common themes or requests made in the surveys. The three priorities
identified were workshops, recruiting and retaining volunteers, and sharing information with new
leaders. Discussion ensued at length regarding providing a handbook or guideline to
neighborhoods to assist them in organizing. Commissioner Bell noted remembering a one or two-
page version developed at one time. Mrs. Loftus will check into this and report back.
Discussion also commenced regarding workshops; the Commission should define the types of
information the Commission wishes to offer and work with Community Education to develop
programs. One suggestion was to solicit information from existing neighborhood leaders to
compile and present at the classes.
34
Mentoring was also discussed. Commissioners believed this to be an important aspect of a
prospering neighborhood and suggested it also be listed as a priority.
The Process Observer and Timekeeper had been noting deviation from the agenda and that time had
run long on this topic. As a result, the Commission agreed that more discussion was needed and
that it should be tabled until aspects of the priorities could be further discussed. Shirley Bell
moved, seconded by Belinda Pinney, to table the priorities of the survey results for discussion at
another meeting. Tom Powers was opposed. The motion carried by majority.
In conclusion, Co Chair Campbell-Duerksen summarized the four main priorities as:
* Workshops.
* Recruiting and retaining volunteers.
* Sharing information with new leaders.
* Mentoring.
C. 1998/99 Work Plan:
Commissioner Moga reviewed the proposed work plan and explained that there are three major
areas of the Commission’s responsibility and identified them as Grant Applications, Neighborhood
Organization, and Communications with Staff, Council, and Commissioners. She attempted to
explain the proposed idea, however some people did not understand the concept. Several
approaches were tried however, confusion ensued. Commissioner Moga tried to explain the concept
of subcommittees and contacts and how during the normally planned second meeting of each
month, while one group is conducting a neighborhood organization meeting, some commissioners
could be checking into other programs offered through the City. Commissioners Bell and Hart as
well as Staff were confused by the proposal for the work plan.
The Commission concurred to table this item as well. Time had again gone over and no progress
had been made. Commissioners suggested that a written presentation be submitted in the next
packet to more completely review before discussion.
Tom Powers left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
The Commission briefly revised the agenda re-prioritizing issues that needed immediate attention. The Ice
Cream Social was briefly discussed and it was suggested that instead of participating with a booth and
information this year, the Commissioners could visit the event for observation and then discuss their
involvement for next year.
It was decided to table the items under New Business and close with discussing the scheduled study session
with City Council.
D. Study Session Preparation:
The Commission reviewed the draft of information to City Council, prepared by Tom Harmening,
regarding the information they wish to discuss at the meeting April 13, 1998. The Commission felt
35
it acceptable. Brief discussion identified that the Commission will be active participants making
comments and answering questions from Council as suggested by Tom Harmening at the last
meeting. Commissioners volunteered to answer questions addressed regarding the following
topics:
* Julie Hart will discuss and respond to questions regarding the Organization Framework.
* Belinda Pinney will discuss and respond to questions regarding the Work Plan.
* Shirley Bell will discuss and respond to questions regarding the Commission’s background
and the Grant Program, if Joanna Brownstein is not present.
* Dorothea Moga will discuss and respond to questions regarding the proposed changes to the
Bylaws and Ordinance.
* Tom Powers was volunteered to discuss and respond to questions regarding the proposed
staff position.
6. Miscellaneous:
No discussion
7. Agenda for May 13, 1998
Items for discussion at the May 13, 1998 meeting include but are not limited to:
A. Job Description/New Position update.
B. Booths and Banners for Parktacular.
C. Review Leaders Forum Follow-up Survey’s – Jan will report back regarding old informational
sheet for new leaders.
D. 1998 Work Plan.
E. Grant Program.
8. Evaluation:
The Commission briefly evaluated the meeting. Most agreed that topics ran long and were unorganized
discussions. Commissioner Hart Commended Co-Chair Campbell-Duerksen on how she ran the meeting.
Suggestions from the Commissioners were:
* Be courteous and raise hands when desiring to speak.
* Assign times before the meeting and include them on the agenda as this is taking up current
meeting time.
* Stick to the topic at hand.
* Honor the times set. Timekeeper should announce as time grows close.
* End a discussion when it is time to move on by either tabling or making a decision.
9. Adjournment:
Co-chair Campbell-Duerksen adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
36
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca L. Belz
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Jan Loftus
Administrative Secretary
37
Item #9b*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - March 18, 1998
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission members: Michael Brandt, Ruth Erickson, Laurel Higgins and Teri Reitan.
Interim staff liaison: Lynn Schwartz
The meeting called to order at 7:10 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Moved by Michael Brandt and seconded by Laurel Higgins to approve the February minutes. Motion passed
unanimously.
2. Old Business
School Liaison: Although Ruth Erickson’s name has been listed on the HRC roster as the commission’s liaison
to the School District, Ms. Erickson has indicated she does not wish to serve as the school liaison. Therefore,
the HRC needs a member willing to assume this role. Commission members were asked if they would like to
take on this duty; however, there were no volunteers. Lynn Schwartz will report the school liaison vacancy to
the City Clerk so that the School Board can interview new appointees about this position.
Phone Line: There were no calls to the phone line since the last meeting. After a discussion about the sparsity
of calls, commission members agreed that there is no need to rotate the follow-up duty on a monthly basis. The
follow-up will be handled on a quarterly basis. Teri Reitan will talk with Judith Moore about following up with
any phone line callers over the next several months. Due to the limited number of calls to the phone line, there
appeared to be no need to provide HRC members with the line’s access code.
Commission members then discussed their beliefs about the commission’s role as it relates to the phone line
(i.e., advocacy versus information sharing). Ruth Erickson expressed her desire for a more proactive stance
including active involvement in mediation. Michael Brandt and Teri Reitan went through the commission’s
past history concerning this issue as well as concerns related to liability and meeting the City Council’s directive
on the role of the HRC. After further discussion, commissioners agreed that their role is to share information
and refer callers to existing agencies that are prepared to handle mediation and complaint follow-up.
Several commission members expressed concern that even in an information and referral mode, they may be
faced with callers who are vulnerable or need help that requires knowledge or training they do not possess.
Commissioners also noted that the City Council appointment process does not include background checks, skills
assessments or requirements of specific knowledge. Given those concerns, commission members wonder if
there ought to be some kind of training provided on how to handle a crisis, what should and shouldn’t be said,
what resources or services are available, etc. Laurel Higgins offered to call the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights to find out whether this agency offers training that HRC members might take advantage of.
38
Following up on the February meeting discussion, Lynn Schwartz provided the commission with a revised
phone line script for their review. The phone line recording will be re-recorded to reflect the revisions.
Resource Materials Update: Lynn Schwartz was not able to research the information requested by HRC at its
last meeting. Resource materials will be provided by the April meeting.
Response Letter: Teri Reitan offered to draft a response to the individuals who wrote letters in response to the
HRC brochure. A draft will be brought to the April meeting.
Bias/Hate Crime: St. Louis Park’s recently appointed Police Chief John Luse has agreed to attend the April
meeting to discuss links between the HRC’s proposed bias/hate crime response plan and the Police
Department’s existing response plan. Discussion on the HRC’s proposed plan was deferred until the April
meeting.
Human Rights Award: The commission reviewed the draft Award materials (letter, guidelines and
nomination form). Members agreed that the date of the award presentation needs to be finalized before
nominations are sought. Following discussion, members agreed to present the award at a City Council meeting
in December during Human Rights Month. Members would like to present the award at the December 7, 1998,
City Council meeting. Lynn Schwartz will notify the City Council of the HRC’s plans.
Members agreed to mail the award solicitation on August 1, 1998, and request that nominations be returned by
October 14, 1998. In addition to a mailing to local businesses, civic organizations, and religious groups, Teri
Reitan suggested that the HRC should contact neighborhood groups about putting a notice in neighborhood
newsletters. Lynn Schwartz was asked to verify who the contact person is for the Neighborhood Revitalization
Commission. Members also discussed making sure that the award is attractive looking and suggested that the
plaque be made of Lucite or a similar material.
News Release: Commission members asked that the news release drafted by Curt Peterson be updated to
include information about the award. Lynn Schwartz will bring a draft to the April meeting for discussion.
Diversity Plan: Judith Moore was not in attendance so the plan was not discussed.
3. New Business
Absence: Because of the small number of commission members and the commission’s policy concerning
advance notification for meeting absences, members agreed that William Webb should be sent a letter
concerning absences so that the City Council can appoint a new member.
4. Adjournment
Moved by Michael Brandt and seconded by Ruth Erickson to adjourn. Passed unanimously. With no further
business, the commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
39
Recording Secretary
40
Item #9c*
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes - April 15, 1998
First Floor Community Room - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission members: John Archibold, Marc Berg, Michael Brandt, Barry Dunayer,
Linda Hammersten, Laurel Higgins, and Judith Moore
Guest: Police Chief John Luse
Interim staff liaison: Lynn Schwartz
The meeting called to order at 7:10 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Moved by Michael Brandt and seconded by Laurel Higgins to approve the March minutes. Motion passed
unanimously.
New members John Archibold, Marc Berg and Linda Hammersten were introduced. Barry Dunayer, acting
chairperson, explained how the agenda is structured.
2. Old Business
Bias/Hate Crime: Laurel Higgins explained the draft response plan she wrote for the commission’s
consideration. She noted that Mort Ryweck, Minnesota League of Human Rights Commissions, reviewed the
plan. He made one minor modification, otherwise he saw no problems with it.
Police Chief John Luse described how the Police Department currently responds to reports of bias/hate crimes
and noted that the Police Department takes this issue seriously. Luse said the Police Department is interested in
assisting the Human Rights Commission in its efforts.
In discussing the HRC’s response plan, the question was raised about how the Police Department would notify
the HRC of an incident. Chief Luse said that the Police Department cannot release privileged information and
doesn’t release detailed information during early stages of the investigation. However, he added that the Police
Department is willing to provide the HRC with any information that is not in violation of the Data Practices Act.
Some members expressed concern about taking public action if the victim would prefer confidentiality. Asked
what the impact of media involvement might be, Luse responded that publicity is sometimes an accelerant but
can also be a positive force by showing community support to victims and opposition to prejudice and hate.
Luse offered to put the HRC’s phone number in a flier that is given to crime victims by police officers. That
way, victims would be able to contact the HRC for information and/or support.
Linda Hammersten questioned whether the HRC should notify police about an incident if the victim doesn’t
want the incident reported.
41
Since the HRC is responsible for periodic reports to the City Council, there is also a need for general statistics.
Luse agreed to provide the HRC with any data that is consistent with the data practices act. Luse added that
there were three incidents reported in 1997 and one this year. He also noted that the commission should be
aware of underreporting. Michael Brandt asked how officers know if the crime is, indeed, a hate or bias crime.
Luse responded that it’s usually obvious.
Phone Line: Laurel Higgins agreed to find out what training opportunities might be offered by the Minnesota
League of Human Rights to help commission members better respond to incidents and concerns. Judith Moore
will continue to follow-up on any calls. There were no calls to the phone line since the last meeting.
Resource List: Members were asked to provide information to Lynn Schwartz so she can make
corrections/additions to the existing list. Schwartz added that commissioners should consider describing how
the list is to be used.
Brochure Response: Discussion was moved to the May meeting.
Human Rights Award: Members agreed to mail the award solicitation on August 1, 1998, and request that
nominations be returned by October 14, 1998. An effort will be made to notify neighborhoods, fraternal groups
and businesses.
Diversity Plan: Judith Moore reported that Gail Toately will no longer be the School District’s Diversity
Coordinator and noted that Toately’s absence would be a loss. She also provided some background information
about the diversity plan to the new members and reported that the School District is rewriting the plan. The plan
contains a mission statement, three goals and an action plan for each goal. After plan is in final form, it will be
presented to the School Board by Bev Stofferan, Associate Superintendent.
Moore said she would like to see the HRC invite School Superintendent Barbara Pulliam to an upcoming HRC
meeting. Moore expressed concern that the School District appears lukewarm about its diversity plan and does
not seem to be putting much priority on proceeding with the plan. Members agreed to invite Pulliam to a future
meeting, especially if the District’s response remains unchanged.
Moore also reported that she is willing to serve as HRC’s liaison to the School District, if the School Board is
agreeable.
3. New Business
Barry Dunayer asked the new members to select a committee assignment.
4. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
Recording Secretary
42
Item #9d*
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 - 7:30 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Boddy, Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and
Anthony Raiber
MEMBERS ABSENT: All were present
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV
Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Arlen Mattern of Paragon Cable
1. Call to Order:
Chair Raiber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes of November 10, 1997:
Commissioner Huiras motioned to approve the minutes of the November 10, 1997 St. Louis
Park Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. Commissioner Browning seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
Commissioner Huiras requested to add discussion regarding substantiation for adding and
deleting cable channels and the status of recruiting commissioners.
Commissioner Browning motioned to accept the agenda as amended. Commissioner
Huiras seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Communications from Paragon Cable:
Mr. Mattern reported that Paragon and the City have received very few calls in spite of the
recent rate increase, and commended City staff for the calls they handled. Mr. Mattern
noted that the subscriber base also increased. He also said that Paragon expects to
complete the Southwest Suburbs rebuild in December of 1999, with cable modem tests for
internet access beginning sometime in 1998. He said that electronic payment is now
available, having been introduced in the last six months.
43
6. Old Business
A. Subscriber Survey Update:
Reg Dunlap reported that the draft of the Ordinance approved by the Commission
will be reviewed by City Council at their March 2, 1998 meeting. Changes, if
Council deems necessary, will most likely be suggested at that reading. City
Council will then have a second reading March 16, 1998. Paragon’s Kim Roden
will be there for support and questions. Commissioners wondered if the proposed
ordinance will meet the needs of the Commission. Mr. Dunlap responded by
explaining that the ordinance will allow Paragon to conduct surveys once every
three years and allow the City to conduct their own survey the other years as needed.
This will acquire more information about technology levels in homes and
programming preferences for the City’s local channels.
B. Basic Cable Service for Cable TV Advisory:
Mr. Dunlap reported of his research and distributed a summarization of information
from various surrounding cities. It was discovered that very few cities offered cable
reimbursement to their Commissioners. It was, however, reported that most cities
offer reimbursement for educational events as well as provide an appreciation event.
Some pay a per diem for each meeting. Mr. Dunlap gave further background
information regarding the history and shared that a previous request had been
eliminated from the 1997 budget. Mr. Dunlap believes the concern is substantiating
the reimbursement for this Commission and not for other Commissions. He
suggested the Commission forward the request to the next available City Council
Study Session for discussion. He further noted that the Commission will need to
substantiate the request.
Commissioners agreed to forward the request to include basic cable reimbursement
in the Cable TV budget to the next available City Council Study Session.
C. Annual Commission Report to City Council:
Chair Raiber noted that this had been included in the packet for review and solicited
feedback from the Commissioners. All were in favor of forwarding the report to
City Council.
D. School District Auto Playback System Grant Update:
Mr. Dunlap reported of a letter received from Gerald Burt requesting to purchase a
total of eight machines. This was as a result of a grant given to School District #283
for a playback system. Mr. Dunlap reiterated that the District will not be reimbursed
until the equipment is operable.
44
7. New Business:
A. Request for Explanation of Increase:
Mr. Dunlap noted the inclusion of the drafted letter to Kim Roden of Paragon Cable
requesting an explanation of the recent increase. Mr. Dunlap noted that Paragon is
thorough in making such calculations however, he is requesting support for the
specific amount.
Commissioners approved of the letter. Mr. Dunlap will mail it and report back
regarding the response from Paragon.
Chair Raiber inquired of Mr. Mattern whether consumers will be able to eventually
choose their cable channels and in essence, create their own cable package. He
reiterated the concerns documented in the complaint log as to the number of
unwanted and inappropriate channels customers have. Discussion ensued in great
detail regarding the aspects involved in granting such a request. Mr. Mattern
responded that it would be cumbersome, costly, and mostly impossible at this point.
Mattern also noted that billing and managing such a program would be confusing
and unrealistic.
The discussion continued regarding the technical ramifications and possibilities of
enhancements that could be shared with Paragon through Mr. Mattern.
B. 1998 Work Plan and Meeting Dates:
The items drafted by staff were reviewed. The Commission scheduled the meetings
and topics as follows:
May 5, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. at the High School or City Hall and to include a box
lunch. Topics will include:
· Review the schools play back system - provided it is operable, and
· Review any additional funding requests by the school district.
• Discuss Internet communications and the Cable TV budget
July 21, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall and to include snacks. Topics will include:
· Paragon Annual Filings,
· A follow up report regarding the Commission’s request for complimentary
basic cable,
· Paragon’s report regarding additional tiers of service, and
· Begin discussion on the potential name change.
September 22, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall and to include snacks. Topics will
include:
45
· An educational report regarding the potential name change to
Telecommunications Commission, and
· Annual Report.
December 8, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall and to include snacks. Topics will
include:
· Any follow up items and any new cable rates and/or changes in the channel
line-up from Paragon.
Commissioner Jacobson asked about the City’s server location, bandwidth and
speed. Staff will research and follow up at the next meeting. Mr. Dunlap informed
the Commission of the Council Chambers remodeling project scheduled for June.
He noted that each Council member station will be wired for laptop usage as well
as changes in lighting, microphones, presentation site, camera, office area, etc.
D. Election of Officers
It was moved by Commissioner Huiras to retain the current officers in their present
positions for another term. This was seconded by Commissioner Browning. The
motion carried unanimously.
8. Reports
Commissioner Huiras questioned Mr. Mattern regarding how decisions to add or delete
cable channels were made. Mr. Mattern reported that Nielsen Ratings and consumer
response drive those decisions.
Commissioner Huiras also questioned if there was any way to track which channels are
watched most and how often. Mr. Mattern reported there is not. Paragon relies on the
Nielsen Ratings and consumer response.
Commissioner Huiras also expressed concern regarding recent mailings distributing stickers
and the Premium Channel Guide that habitually comes late. Mr. Mattern will investigate
and forward the stickers to Commissioner Huiras.
Commissioner Huiras then posed the question regarding competition and wondered if there
were any hindrances keeping other cable companies out of St. Louis Park. Mr. Dunlap
responded that there were no deterrents other than the fact that the City is currently serviced
by Paragon who has a newly upgraded 550 Mhz system available. Most companies would
not choose to compete with that.
9. Communications from Chair:
46
Chair Raiber welcomed Rebecca Belz as Recording Secretary. He also thanked the
Commissioners for their service over the past year and looked forward to the challenging
year ahead.
10. Communications from Staff:
John McHugh distributed a Community TV33/96 Programming and Activities Report for
1997 for the Commission’s review. He also highlighted various aspects of its contents and
asked for questions.
Commissioner Browning questioned if potential commissioners were being recruited. Mr.
Dunlap responded that indeed, staff and the City were working on this.
11. Adjournment:
With no other business to come before the Commission, Chair Raiber adjourned the
meeting at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca L. Belz
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
47
Item #9e*
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION
AND
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1998
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PARKS & RECREATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Meriwether Felt, Christine Stephansen, Dawn Wright,
Jim Martin, Pete Chubb, Jeff Davidman
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris,
Sally Velick, Deb Bohn
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver
STAFF PRESENT: Tom Harmening, Cris Gears, Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus
Stacy Voelker
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of joint meeting of March 18, 1998
Ms. Wright moved approval of the minutes of March 18, 1998. Mr. Davidman seconded
the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 9-0-1 with Felt, Stephansen, Wright,
Chubb, Davidman, Garelick, Morris, Velick and Bohn voting in favor and Gothberg
abstaining.
3. Presentation of Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Study Task Force Recommendations
Jim Martin arrived.
Greg Ingraham, Consultant of Ingraham & Voss, Inc. made a brief overview of the
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Study and focused on the conceptual changes to the
previous preferred plan of the Task Force outlined in the staff report. He noted that the
Task Force modified the plan after the Oen House to be more sensitive to the trees and
slope on the west side of the park and to eliminate the office building from the northwest
corner of Louisiana and Walker, unless it is needed for economic or shared parking
48
reasons. He also compared the existing Comprehensive Plan to the Task Force
recommended plan. He noted that the Task Force recommended doubling the amount of
dedicated park land and reducing the potential housing development from 600 to 250
units.
4. Public Comment Period
Sharon Starks of 3409 Sumter Avenue South, President of the Oak Hill Neighborhood
Association, said “I noticed that the Task Force did a better job on the revised plan on the
results of the Task Force and the 75 surveys, but I think most of the people who were
there, about 200 people, didn’t want any development of the park or the woods, and I am
not quite sure from the information provided that it says that this is contaminated land
and it needs a lot of work to clean it up for park and development. I want to know what
the next steps are going to be and recommend providing more information to the public
because plans are presented, but how much it will cost to develop, clean up, or leave the
way it is hasn’t been revealed. If you ask us for our comments and we come and talk to
you and tell you don’t develop this, then you are supposed to listen to us.”
Janet Jeremiah stated that there will be further cost analysis done. The Task Force
received information about the costs that are currently transpiring in this area and what it
might cost to do this type of development (including parking lots and some of the park
improvements) but they haven’t discussed all the details. Generally, detailed discussions
of cost issues and how to fund the improvements are left to the City Council and the
Economic Development Authority. They are waiting for all of the public comments
before doing so. She noted that as things move forward, there will be more opportunities
for public discourse when additional information is available. The process isn’t over yet.
As far as where we are heading in the future, almost without exception, whenever there
is a development plan, it winds up coming before the Planning Commission or the City
Council at a public hearing. Changes to the Comprehensive Plan documents to designate
more park areas would also require public hearings.
Cindy Nagel of 3401 Texas Avenue South asked about the new plan with the 15 houses
up on the wooded part of the area and asked where the outlet was for that now. She said
previously there was only one entry and exit to the area with a culdesac at the end and not
open-ended on both sides, so that the traffic wouldn’t go down 34th Street.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there had been a number of different ideas about how to service
that area and as the consultant mentioned, there wasn’t one particular design that was
locked in at this point, but the Task Force recommendations were to be sensitive to the
existing trees and to make single family housing rather than townhouses or any other
format so it would fit better with the neighborhood. The Task Force expressed interest in
the City continuing to look at any traffic concerns or problems that there might be in that
area. There was a petition for stop signs in the neighborhood to the west. She stated this
was only the Task Force recommendation for single family housing, preservation of the
49
grade and trees to the extent possible, and the consultants interpretation on how to best do
that with the amount of the knowledge about the site today.
Ms. Nagel asked if the single family housing is supposed to be move up housing, and
what the City is trying to achieve.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that move up housing is correct. Vision St. Louis Park had a housing
task force that expressed a real need to see more move up housing opportunities in St.
Louis Park, and this was deemed a desirable area to provide some of that housing.
Ms. Nagel said “I am concerned. I was a part of an audience at the last Planning
Commission meeting and I haven’t been involved in local politics at all since they
generally frustrate me, but I was really appalled when I heard some of the discussion that
was going back and forth and they talked about some chapters were going in to the
Comprehensive Plan based on some demographic information that was going to be pulled
from the census information and also from some of the real-estate sales information.
Someone in that meeting that I believe was part of the Task Force and also the School
Board said ‘Oh wow, that would be great information to have’, and to me as a
professional person, I need to be very prepared when I work with other businesses and
know there business inside and out before I go and present to them. It’s been my
understanding that we are in final phases here of these proposals and they are going to
City Council for a vote and I am really concerned that there hasn’t been any kind of
demographic information that has been taken into account. I don’t think there has been a
target market that has been established. There has been a lot of talk about all of these
different multiple housing and move up housing, but are we looking for new families,
established families in St. Louis Park who are moving up, or seniors? What is that we are
trying to look for? We have this small piece of land, in the scheme of things, in St. Louis
Park, that we are trying to get everything into. We are trying to get recreation, we are
trying to keep our parks, trying to get single family housing, we are trying to get
Plymouth and Eden Prairie type of housing, we are trying to get apartment buildings. It
just seems that we are trying to cram everything into this little area and I am really
concerned that there hasn’t been the research gone into that needs to go into it and believe
that before it comes to a vote, a lot more work needs to be done.”
Florence Flugaur of 3320 Louisiana Avenue, # 412 stated, “I have a question about the
parking lots that are going to be put into the soccer field. At one of the meetings,
somebody gave figures on the number of parking spaces needed. Are these parking lots
going to be big enough or will you have to take more of the green land later? Because
keeping the green land there is awfully important to the people here and providing that
area for kids to play gives them to run off their stresses. Recreational areas are very
important here for people who work with children. How tall will the medical office and
other office building will be?”
Chair Morris stated that a lot of the plan was conceptual at this time and didn’t have any
specific plans such as the size of parking lots, how many cars and the specific height of a
50
building. That would be generated after the comprehensive plan amendments are made
and a specific plan was submitted to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Flugaur said “I think those things are very important to maintaining. Parking lots
would pave over the green areas and would lose what we have now, which is a very
beautiful open green area. I was really surprised and concerned to see, from one of the
earlier plans shown this evening, that the area that was going to be built up with housing
is park land, yet it is going to be turned into a little street with 20 houses on it. I didn’t
know that the City could take park land and turn it into a city street. As someone pointed
out at one of the last meetings, the City is being over built and that should really be
looked at carefully. I may be mistaken about this, but I thought at the last meeting that
something was said about okaying part of the plan or starting work right away. I think it
was on the medical office site and I guess that I would be in favor of having the whole
plan in place first. I think it is important that we can see the total picture and the public
can see the picture before you go ahead with it. Thank you for all the work you have put
in on this although there has been a lot of discussion on it.”
Sharon Olson of 3500 Quebec Avenue South provided a Certificate of Title for the park
land where the alley is being considered for the 15 houses.
Chair Morris reiterated that this was a conceptual plan and that wasn’t to say that the
normal legal procedures of making changes weren’t going to be followed. If indeed there
was park land that was being proposed for housing, and the legalities need to be changed,
the City would proceed with changes according to ordinance requirements. This is a
concept plan and parking lots and buildings may not end up where they are shown. We
are looking at a Comprehensive Plan that is a guide to development, but it does not
necessarily mean that what you see here is going to be developed that way.
Al Pooler of 3119 Sumter Avenue South, said “I have some concerns and frustrations
about the plan and the process. I have a concern that the soil contamination of the old
property be addressed before any development of any buildings or parking lots. As you
know the creosote property has been characterized as one of Minnesota’s most polluted
sites. It seems to me that any development planning on this property requires an
assessment of the extent of the contamination and the cost of remediation. The plan
proposes a grass overflow parking lot near Walker and Pennsylvania. I understand that
this would sit on a mound of contaminated soil taken from earlier construction in another
location on the creosote sight. A permanent clean-up of this contaminated soil should be
completed before any development of this area. The construction of 15 single family
homes in the wooded bluff area on the east side of Oak Hill Park should never be
considered before an environmental impact study has been completed. I know there are
some very old oak trees, lots of bird, and little critters in there and I submit that they
should be left undisturbed. I am frustrated that the hundred of homeowners in the Oak
Hill neighborhood, the people who will be most affected by development on the site, had
little, if any, input into the plan. I look at the make-up of the Task Force and see that we
the homeowners of Oak Hill neighborhood are conspicuously absent. I find it very
51
frustrating that we are in a position where our concerns were largely ignored and we must
now try to change the plan that was drafted at least in part by representatives of both the
Planning and the Parks and Recreation Commissions. I assume that the park and
recreation department has a master plan. How are the needs for recreational opportunities
by area seniors, adults, children, bicyclists, roller bladers, and kite flyers addressed in the
this plan? It looks to me like they aren’t. It is now laid out that it is a soccer complex
with a pond. A 200 car parking lot is part of the plan. That is three times the size of the
existing park lot on 33rd and Rhode Island. I find this unacceptable. In summary, I am
concerned about the plan for development on the contaminated soil of the old creosote
plant. I am concerned that 15 single family homes are proposed on the wooded bluff area
on the east side of Oak Hill Park, before a study of the environmental impact. I am
frustrated that the homeowners were left out of the planning process. I am concerned that
the recreational needs of everybody, but the soccer players have largely been ignored. I
think it is time that the City Council take off their community development hats and put
on there City Council hats, and once and for all make the Oak Hill Park area an official
park. This is the only way we aren’t going to be faced with some future community
development proposal to build multi-family housing, office space or commercial
buildings or all of the above on this site.”
Ms. Jeremiah explained that there were representatives on the Task Force both from the
Oak Hill neighborhood and South Oak Hill neighborhood, as well as, 3300 on the Park,
the Oak Park Village development, as far south as the Brooklawn and Elmwood
neighborhoods, and Lenox to the east. She stated that if anyone wanted a copy of the
members of the Task Force she would provide one.
Mary Simon of 3412 Quebec Avenue South, said “the property was used by the high
school and is an important area for students who use it for soccer, track, and cross county
skiing practice and to take this away from them would be a great injustice. There are a lot
of children in that area that need that space to run and play and have a fun time, as well
as, the adults in the area. Speaking of children, and looking at the new play area, I am
really concerned about the one soccer field that is right next to Louisiana. The ball may
go out in the street and I can see children going after the ball and being hit. It is a very
busy street and not a good place to have a soccer field. I live up on Quebec and when we
go by Walker field when there are ball or soccer games going on you have to be
extremely careful for children. Talking about putting the soccer field up on Walker Park,
why can’t we have the soccer fields there also and have it a shared park as we have been
doing for many years? It works well for both, why take the softball field away? The
softball fields are also used by the church down the street and there are concerns there
about not being able to use that area either. When you look at the whole space that is
considered, Oak Hill Village and you drive by it, it is not a very large area. Why take up
space for an office building, let’s leave that space green. I also say that about the housing
on the west part where the beautiful trees are. Although a better plan, I wouldn’t like to
see houses there.”
52
Janet Rowley, 34th and Sumter, has been a resident of St. Louis Park for 25 years. She
said “I have two issues I would like to address. The first is the summary of our Task
Force meeting agenda here today. It was brought out that someone is under the
assumption that the residents are not aware that it is contaminated property. I guess I’m
going to be a little nasty and I am going to say that maybe the Task Force is not aware of
the fact that since the early 80’s, the City started mowing down the grass there, put in
those paved trails and put the park in their book, Welcome to St. Louis Park I started
looking at books going back to 1984 where it is listed .55 mile that goes right up to Oak
Hill. I don’t think you are aware of the fact there is kite flying, soccer, sliding and yes
you did haul in dirt to put in underneath the slide. I don’t think you are aware of the fact
there is kickball, football and the City school district does use it for track and everything
else. The other thing is what about when the City invited the public to come watch the
fireworks. They invited us there for years to watch the 4th of July fireworks there, the
ground wasn’t contaminated enough then? We sure didn’t let anyone know it was and
now all of a sudden it is an issue?”
Ms. Rowley said “my other issue is just crunching dollar figures. We all know it costs
about $300,000 a year to keep the water clean which we are currently getting from a
federal plan and we all know that it is running out and this is what helped draw this issue
up, wanting to develop it. When crunching dollars, I questioned the amount would be
short and ask if the City will raise taxes because it is not feasible. The other thing is who
says that the clean-up cost is going to stay stuck at $300,000 (time effort and money).
Check the whole area out, whether it is developed or not, we still have to clean up the
water.”
Ira Gurewitz, 2902 Idaho Avenue South, has been a resident for 41 years. He said “I am
speaking on behalf of the soccer fields, I am member of the St. Louis Park Soccer
Association. It is important to have the four centrally located fields. There has been
tremendous growth in the sport and desire to have at least one tournament in the summer
time and without a central location we won’t be able to do so. The fields are used by the
high school soccer program and some of the other athletic programs. Growth in the USA
is catching up to the rest of the world. Our City is proving it here, statewide and nation
wide. The addition of Olympic soccer, the world cup here in 1990 and the additional TV
coverage of the world cup and other soccer leagues are continuing to help it grow and I
don’t see the concern by the Task Force that soccer is declining. Walker Field is being
used by several groups. The Soccer Association is working on a grant to help pay for the
development of the fields. We are a large youth organization giving the kids a real
positive experience and a chance for the kids to expend their energy in a positive manner
rather than giving them a tremendous amount of time sitting around and giving them an
opportunity to run into trouble in the community.”
Christopher Kunz of 3620 Rhode Island said “I am concerned that the reason why the site
is being developed has not been clearly explained. I think the idea of the office complex
on that land for parking is ludicrous. Lets think of creative ways of parking. I can give
you a bunch of solutions. Get rid of the apartments, put the office complex there, put
53
your parking there. Take Louisiana, make it a little wider, do angle parking and park
along Louisiana. These are right off the top of my head, there are other solutions. Also,
we don’t talk about details, you talk about this conceptually. Detail is huge, everything is
in the detail. A couple cute soccer fields are nice, a soccer complex with fences and
lights up until midnight is a disaster. People can agree with parts of the whole plan, but
until you do get the details, we are talking about some overall nice plan. No one is going
to want office buildings and houses all over the park. My biggest concern is getting the
details and getting the reasons for why you are doing this. I see this park as a reward for
all the people who have had to live with this contaminated site for so long. The only
reason why the site has not been cleaned up is it was too expensive. Now, the open space
is finally looking good and you want to develop it. The only reason why it had not been
developed is that it was contaminated. Let’s take some positive out of this. It was
contaminated, it is still contaminated, but the good thing is we have a nice open space
here and no other City has any open space.”
Ms. Jeremiah stated that there is a current Comprehensive Plan and zoning in effect that
would permit 600 units of housing in the area and a substantial amount of commercial
development. There was a very real understanding on the part of the City Council that
the community had some concerns about that and would prefer to see more dedicated
park land in this area. That was one of the initiatives for the study. When we state that
there is a desire for a mix of housing and some of the other housing goals you have heard,
these came from Vision St. Louis Park (a 1994 grass roots initiative that found out what
was good about this City, what was working, and what could be improved). We heard a
lot about housing, parks and other issues. The development pressure, the need for a
medical office facility to accommodate doctors currently working in the City and serving
the residents in this area was the recent catalyst to bring this to the forefront. Although the
development proposal could have been confined to one site and we could discuss that one
site in isolation, it was understood that there were all these other concerns about the way
this area was currently zoned for development. The City Council directed staff to use the
Task Force process to make sure that all of the different entities interested in this area
were represented. They also opened it up for general public comment. After the Open
House, the Task Force discussed limiting the disruption to trees and steep slopes on the
west side of the park and turning it into single family housing only. Several different
actions would have to take place before that could be done, one of which would be to
remove the deed restrictions and also to change the Comprehensive Plan. There is much
more substantial land that is currently guided and zoned for housing up to 30 units per
acre which is called medium density. The Task Force would like to see that changed to
park. That also takes formal public hearings held before the Planning Commission and
City Council. This is only a first step to hear comments to see if this is heading in the
right direction. With the desire for park, there are certain development needs that come
along with parks. The poor condition of the soccer field was a result of heavy use and the
lack of irrigation, because it was never really developed as a park. There are costs that
are related to developing parks. The Task Force heard the comments at the open house
and agreed that if the City can live without that office development on the corner of
Walker and Louisiana, the Task Force preferred that the office complex not be built and it
54
just get developed as a parking lot. However, by putting in an office, the developers
would pay for the parking lot and it could be used basically for free by the park users.
That is the rationale for doing the office. Also, the Economic Development Authority
bought that land years ago for development. To take that area out of the EDA and put it
into park uses takes a formal action. The only action City Council could take at the April
20th meeting would be to receive the Task Force recommendation and begin to consider
all of the details such as the environmental impact and funding.
Dan Smida of 3246 Rhode Island, said “when we talked last time in a public forum, I
expressed that the Task Force and the City were obligating themselves by including
public opinion to listen to the needs of citizens. It seemed to me at the public meeting
that we were fairly unanimous in our distaste for those houses and the retail/office
building on the corner of Louisiana and Walker. Tonight we saw some changes. We lost
5 houses. We were fairly united in our opposition to that corner office building, yet it is
still part of the plan. Were our opinions heard or not, I’m not sure. It seems from this, if
they were heard, they were not acted upon, which is disturbing. Tonight we heard more
comments united in opposition to those specific aspects of the plan. Although it sounds
like you are getting closer, a gap remains between what folks want and what the Task
Force has recommended and I would like to call attention to that gap. I don’t know why
the members of the Task Force serve, personally, and I congratulate you for doing so. If I
were to serve, I would say what do I want to look back on having done for St. Louis Park.
When you look back on your roles in this City and what you have done and think of
telling somebody look here is what I was a part of. Was a I part of preserving precious
green space and preserving community space or have I put up houses and office space?
Single family houses aren’t what make community, it’s where people gather. This is an
opportunity for the City to do something rare and outstanding and put a stamp on that
Oak Park Village green space that says this is green space and will be green space forever
and let us not ever mess with it because that is what makes St. Louis Park precious.”
Randy Ruden of 4319 Minnetonka Boulevard said “I have lived and worked in St. Louis
Park for many years and believe you can’t replace a park like this because they just don’t
exist anymore. I would like to keep this park and stay in St. Louis Park and hopefully the
park stays there.”
Chuck Dolmeyer of 3409 Quebec Avenue South, said “my wife and I are expecting twins
anyday and when I bought my house there 2 years ago, there was nothing in the disclosure
statement about any contaminated land and I found out from a co-worker of mine that the
land was contaminated and you want to build houses back there. Are you going to put
that in their disclosure statements and sell the houses as these were built on contaminated
land? I am strongly opposed to converting Walker Park into a soccer field. We are
starting to sound like professional sports organization fighting for park space. I think it’s
ridiculous. I think there are some good ideas in there and commend the Task Force for
listening, but believe they could include more of our input.”
55
Gene Gierke of 3420 Rhode Island South, said “I have seen that park grow. I used to live
over on 36th and Wyoming and there was a golf course that was torn down to make a nice
Knollwood Plaza; made into a tar strip and all the water and everything deposited into
the homes in the area. They decided to build the Knollwood Plaza and they had a school
up there and they sold the land for $750,000 and what do we have now is a empty
Montgomery Wards building and no money being made for the City. I can see what goes
on everyday at Oak Hill Park and it really hurts me to see that people do try to ignore us,
all the folks here tonight. I think that you should be sympathetic and kind to them and be
very well rewarded by listening to them.”
Ellen Kunz of 3620 Rhode Island South, said “I encourage you to look at the faces of the
people in attendance tonight. We are here tonight because we care for this piece of land,
this beautiful resource. I believe in the concept that everything happens for a reason.
Maybe the creosote leaked into the water table so that development of this land would be
prevented for the duration of our lives in spite of ourselves and desire to develop
everything. In 50-100 years we could turn around and be thankful that there is still this
green space left in an urban metro area. An issue for me is the woods; I hate to see the
mature trees killed. I don’t see what a difference 15 single family homes will make in
terms of revenues coming in that will help offset those funds needed for water
monitoring. If you go from 20 houses to 15 houses and change the plan, couldn’t you
just go to zero? Keep the trees and encourage everyone that make any kind of decision
about those woods to go walk through them.”
Steve Harris of 3389 Sumter Avenue South, said “I was the past President of the Oak Hill
Neighborhood. We moved here 3 years ago from Edina. We picked St. Louis Park
because of its great neighborhoods, its great people, and central location. We made a
very conscientious decision to come to St. Louis Park and help organize the
neighborhood. There are a lot of concerned people. I know St. Louis Park and know that
the backbone of St. Louis Park is its neighborhoods and green space. Unfortunately, our
neighborhood association was not informed of the Task Force until it was too late to join.
Yes, there is someone from our neighborhood on that Task Force, but our neighborhood
association does not have any representation on the Task Force. Our neighborhood
makes up most of that land that we are talking about west of Louisiana. One of our
officers has been going to the Task Force meetings, but not allowed to speak. When we
bought our house, no one told us that two blocks to the east of us was land for economic
development and that it was not majority zoned for park. It looks like a park and we
thought it was a park. In the future there won’t be a meeting to decide to knock down
buildings to develop green space. We need to proceed more cautiously. I am not against
development around the intersection of Louisiana and Highway 7.”
5. Close Public Comment and Open Commissioner Discussion
Michael Garelick has been a resident since 1952 and remembers when the area was called
“skunk hollow” and has some concerns both ways. He doesn’t believe that a satisfactory
answer had been given on the questions on the nature of the contamination. He is
56
concerned about children playing in the contaminated dirt and what effect it is going to
have on them. He is concerned that basements couldn’t be built because of the
restrictions on moving the contaminated dirt off site. He is a strong proponent of a
revitalized St. Louis Park and sees the housing stock getting old and many residents
wanting to stay in St. Louis Park, but there is no move-up housing. His greatest concern
is the issue of pollution, and he would like to see if this is a prototype for a community.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that some of the existing housing had been developed on the Reilly
site and soil reclamation had been done. She noted that clean soil was put on top of
contaminated soils. She stated that when major park improvements such as irrigation
systems, parking lots and basements are considered, poor soils will need to be addressed
and would require approval by the Pollution Control Agency.
Jim Martin was concerned about the lack of balance for recreational uses and
recommended looking at balancing uses and more diversity.
Chair Morris agreed that balancing uses is needed today, and desires to keep the green
space as opposed to losing it and not having the space available in the future.
Sally Velick referred to a question by Janet Rowly regarding federal funds drying up and
the City needing development in the area to fund water treatment and the cost of
maintaining the contaminated soil and asked for clarification.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that, to her knowledge, there had not been any federal funding for the
clean-up that had been going on and continued to be needed in the future. Pump houses
are used to prevent the further spread of deep ground water contamination underneath
Oak Park Village and much of St. Louis Park to the south and to the east. The pumped
water is cleaned at the water treatment facility. She summarized TIF funding and the
need for ongoing ground water clean-up. She noted that the Task Force received a great
deal of detailed information over the course of several months. This may explain some of
the differences between the Task Force recommendations and views of the general
public.
Chair Morris asked what the current short term plans are for the development of
recreational facilities and parking in the area.
Cris Gears, Park and Recreation Director, stated that there are no plans to expand any
recreational uses in the area or make any capital improvements on the site.
Chair Morris asked what would be the catalyst to initiate this type of a park plan.
Mr. Gears stated that this current process would determine what the long term uses of that
park should be.
57
Chair Morris asked Mr. Gears if he believed that the area could be developed as a surface
recreational type use with current soil contamination.
Mr. Gears believed that bringing in additional top soil would allow the development of
surface type recreational facilities.
Chair Morris asked if fees would be established for use of recreational faciliities.
Mr. Gears stated that there would be no fees for soccer use, but perhaps future uses would
generate fees.
Meriwether Felt raised a concern about the cost of water quality maintenance and soil
remediation.
Tom Harmening, Community Development Director, stated that the cost of ongoing
treatment of water would have to be addressed in the future regardless of the development
of the area and noted that, with private development, the City could leverage the taxes
against the developer to help pay for the remediation to allow the development to occur
and use those revenues to facilitate improvements to the park desired by residents.
Christine Stephansen commended the Task Force for there accomplishments and said that
development of the corner of Louisiana and Highway 7 should not be held hostage for a
decision on park land.
Chair Morris agreed with need for development of the intersection and believed that the
site could be developed to support proposed housing.
Ms. Velick asked Greg Ingraham to clarify the location of office building parking. Mr.
Inghaham described the location.
Chair Morris stated that the City Council was not asking the Joint Commission to pass a
resolution, but were interested in a consensus.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that detailed minutes would be given to Council. She recommended
that Commissioners make a detailed comments.
Dawn Wright addressed the housing. She said “If I were to purchase one of those houses
on the area of contaminated land I would not want to do that if I was aware of it, I think it
would be very difficult to develop or get a developer to want to develop that land.
However, I would like to still see the office building on Walker and Louisiana and don’t
believe it interferes with the green space.”
Ken Gothberg said “I agree with most of the comments and believe that developing
housing on the hill and taking away green space is not necessarily the best use of the land.
I also have a concern that if we try to continue working with the whole area we’ll
58
continue to stumble across a lot of issues, and it may be best to segregate the development
issues with the area to the north Walker and west of Louisiana, maybe going back for
futher study as far as the best use of that area and continue on stronger with the
remainder.”
Mr. Garelick said “most of the discussion has only dealt with a small part of this plan and
I think this in not right. A larger discussion is needed on the housing aspect of it. I
believe that the housing on the hill would be a waste, that is not going to cause
momentum for move-up housing in St. Louis Park and marketing would be very difficult.
The land also lends itself to a townhouse or mixed housing situation, and would like to
hear more comments from the residents on how to make a mixed housing area work.”
Ms. Jeremiah reiterated that the Task Force did discuss the possibility of townhouses,
more cluster housing, as a means of sensitivily placing more units and preserving more
trees, but there were some Task Force members who were concerned that it would bring
in a new type of housing to that western area which is now completely single family
housing. The Task Force looked at high density housing on the Mill City site and the
Apple Valley Read-E-Mix site and felt it more appropriate.
Pete Chubb stated had no problem with the concept except for housing and recommended
development of park land for multi-use recreation.
6. Accept Task Force Recommendations and Consider Formal Commission
Recommendations to City Council
Chair Morris stated he was going to divide the question into two parts; one being those
Commissioners who feel that they could forward a recommendation of the Task Force
proposal and consider a formal Commission recommendation to the Council and those
who feel that the issues still are not resolved and that more discussion and review are
necessary. This will give a consensus of who is in favor.
Seven Commissioners voted in favor of sending forward the Task Force
Recommendation as presented with the understanding that the comments that have been
made both by the public and the Commissioners are going to be heard and dealt with by
Council.
Four Commissioners voted in favor of further study and input before the Council should
consider and accept this plan.
Michael Garelick opposed sending the Task Force recommendation on to the Council
because of the question of developing housing or athletic mixed use on contaminated
land.
Jim Martin opposed because he believes it should be sent back for more consideration on
mixed recreational use, with greater de-emphasis on the housing and office development.
59
Meriwether Felt was in favor of sending on the Task Force recomemndation with the
understanding that all the comments of the meeting would be included and because this
concept does increase the amount of dedicated park land.
7. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
60
Item #9f*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 1998 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis
Morris
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Bohn, Paul Carver, Sally Velick
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of April 15, 1998 - Joint Planning Commission and Park &
Recreation Commission; and regular Planning Commission Meeting
Chair Morris suggested deferring approval of Joint Planning Commission and Park &
Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes until all Commissioners had reviewed.
Mr. Garelick moved approval of regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April
15, 1998. Mr. Gothberg seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1
with Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor and Bissonnette abstaining.
3. Public Hearing
A. Case No. 95-51-PUD—Request of Ryan Companies US, Inc. for an
amendment to the Park Place Plaza PUD to allow an additional 36 square
foot sign for the proposed Leann Chin’s Restaurant on lot 6.
Chair Morris stated that the reqeust had been withdrawn by the applicant. He opened the
public hearing because it was continued from April 15th.
There being no one who wished to speak, Chair Morris closed the public hearing.
No action was required.
4. Old Business: Minutes of 4-1-98. Refer to memorandum from City Clerk
forwarding comments from resident, Cindy Nagel, regarding 4-1-98 minutes.
Mr. Garelick moved that the communication be entered into the record. Mr. Gothberg
seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
5. New Business:
A. Consent Agenda: None
61
B. Other New Business:
Bi. Case No. 98-10-CUP—Request of Sholom Community Alliance to amend an
existing special permit to allow an enclosed pedestrian walkway between 2
existing buildings for property located at 3620 and 3630 Phillips Parkway.
Ms. Jeremiah presented a staff report and recommended that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the amendment subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Chair Morris questioned a variance request by the Board of Zoning Appeals to eliminate
the 15 foot setback.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the applicant had rescinded that request since the ordinance
amendment permitting pedestrian walkways moved forward and the variance request
became unnecessary.
Chair Morris asked if the walkway and porch had heating, AC, and electrical service.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that was the case.
Chair Morris noted that drainage would take place by the slope of the roof towards the
interior courtyard.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the City Engineer has reviewed the grading plans and found
them acceptable.
Ms. Bissonnette asked the architect to review the proposed plans.
Barbara Anderson, Architect with Nelson Germane Partnership of 125 S.E. Main Street,
was present and described the site plan and elevations for the walkway and porch.
Mr. Garelick asked if there was currently a lot of movement between buildings and
questioned if this was the main motivation for the change.
Ms. Anderson stated that there was a lot of movement and although this fact was part of
the motivation, the location of health services on the first level of the nursing home and
the normal progression of apartment residents moving into the nursing home were also
part of the consideration.
Mr. Garelick moved acceptance of the expansion of the proposed walkway for Sholom
Community Alliance, with approval subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Mr. Gothberg seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor.
Bii. Case No. 98-11-ZA—Request of Sweet Corn & More Vegetable Farm to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit temporary sale of agricultural
commodities up to six months per year.
Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator presented a staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend expanding the applicability of the proposed use to
include the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and MX Mixed-Use Zoning Districts. Staff
62
also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
language with the changes listed in the staff report to address the primary negative
impacts of parking circulation, traffic and aesthetics.
Mr. Garelick believed that the concept of a “farmer’s market” was good, but questioned
potential lease restrictions by the proposed CUB food store.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that Knollwood and CUB foods had submitted a formal application
to locate CUB at the old Montgomery Wards building, but she wasn’t able to provide any
specific information regarding potential lease restrictions.
Mr. Garelick recommended investigating this issue further.
Ms. Erickson stated that this use would have to be approved by Knollwood and would
require a formal lease.
Ms. Bissonnette believed this was a good use of the site and encouraged the continued
use.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the 6 month allowance of the lease was continuous.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the lease could be either.
Mr. Gothberg questioned if parking on the boulevard would be prohibited.
Ms. Erickson stated that the congestion provision would take care of any potential
problems.
Ms. Bissonnette stated that she believes that the circulation and traffic moves well.
Chair Morris raised a concern about a potential legal conflict between commercial uses
and specifically allowing only agricultural uses.
Ms. Erickson commented on provisions that allow temporary outdoor sales, but stated
that by law, agricultural commodities could not be restricted.
Chair Morris recommended that staff review the language in other temporary outdoor sale
ordinances, examine the need to restrict existing businesses to have “on premise”
extensions, better define commodities for outside storage, and limit number of non-
produce items sold.
Ms. Erickson recommended adding more restrictive language to Condition # 4 and Ms.
Jeremiah recommended examining the C-2 District Shopping Center ordinance which
allows outdoor sales and display, but material other than plant materials required
screening.
Chair Morris encouraged the Planning Commission to keep in mind the big picture of
allowing this concept and type of use.
Bill Griffith of 1500 Norwest Financial Center and Jay Gans, the applicant, were present.
Mr. Griffith addressed the questions of the Planning Commission. With regard to the
concept of how agricultural commodities are different, he stated that Minnesota State
Statutes made a distinction on the basis of locally grown Minnesota goods. With regard
to the proliferation of outdoor sales, there are standards that limit the type of use. Mr.
63
Griffith stated that the applicant had discussions with the leasing representatives who
desired to see the use continued, not withstanding the application by CUB foods. He also
recommended the addition of a condition that a temporary 4 x 4 standing sign be
allowed.
Ms. Erickson stated that because there are special requirements in the State Statue that
allow for agricultural commodities, the City may not limit an owner or business if, in fact,
they are selling the same type of commodity. Staff will investigate this further.
Mr. Gans pointed out that he actually locally grows what is sold, with the exception of
potting soil, as a convenience to customers in the spring.
Chair Morris recommended a certain square footage allocation be designated.
Mr. Gothberg asked if the language in the ordinance addressed the issue of Minnesota
grown verses out of state.
Ms. Erickson stated that presently the ordinance did not include any language and
recommended an amendment to the proposed recommendation be made.
Mr. Griffith stated that other cities had a limitation that potting soil be direct from the
grower/producer, rather than limit the location.
Ms. Bissonnette moved acceptance of the staff recommendation to expand the
applicability of the proposed use to permit it in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2
General Commercial, and M-X Mixed Use Zoning Districts with approval of the
proposed language with the changes listed in the staff report, with consideration of
Planning Commission suggestions and allowance of a temporary 4 x 4 standing sign. Mr.
Gothberg seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette,
Garelick, Gothberg and Morris voting in favor.
Biii. Case No. 98-4-ZA—Amendment to Flood Plain Ordinance
Judie Erickson presented a staff report and recommended adoption of the text
amendments.
Chair Morris questioned the logic of grandfathering in a new addition to a building which
technically didn’t conforming to the ordinance
Ms. Bissonnette moved acceptance of staff recommendation and recommended that the
City Council adopt the Floodplain District ordinance changes to the text. Mr. Garelick
seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Bissonnette, Garelick,
Gothberg and Morris voting in favor.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action: April 20, 1998 and May 4, 1998
B. Board of Zoning Appeals - Minutes January 22, 1998, Minutes March 19,
1998, Agenda April 23, 1998
64
C. Other: None
7. Miscellaneous
Mr. Garelick asked if funds were available to send flowers to Commissioner Velick who
was recovering from surgery and on a leave of absence. Staff will follow up on request.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that City Council has directed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan
amendment to redesignate a portion of the Hutchinson Spur that would relocate a future
trail off of a portion of that property and on to City park property and possibly, school
district property. She stated that this item would formally come before the Planning
Commission within the next month.
Chair Morris stated that three years ago the official map was amended to designate that
portion as a park trail.
Judie Erickson stated that that was withdrawn by the applicant at the time.
Ms. Bissonnette questioned the price the owner was asking for the property.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the price was substantially less, but was not public information
since City Council had not completed execution of a purchase agreement.
Mr. Gothberg stated he attended the recent public update meeting. He recommended that
the Planning Commission be updated on the entirety of the project to ensure a
comprehensive review when the first item comes to them for consideration.
Ms. Bissonnette asked if the number of proposed new homes had been confirmed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that 8-10 were being proposed at the current time, but the Planning
Commission would be updated as the consultant prepared designs.
Chair Morris noted that Cris Gears, Director of Parks and Recreation had resigned. Mr.
Garelick stated that he will be missed.
Mr. Garelick commented on an advanced Planning Commission seminar he attended
recently in St. Cloud and recommended it to others.
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by: Shirley Olson, Recording Secretary
65
Item #9g*
MINUTES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
April 23, 1998
City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Roberts, Susan Bloyer, Anthony Reel
MEMBERS ABSENT: James Gainsley
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes dated January 22, 1998 and March 19, 1998
Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of the
meetings dated January 22, 1998 and March 19, 1998.
Motion Passed Unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda: None
4. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2-98 VAR -- Request of Community Housing and Services for a
variance from Section 14:5-4.6(G)(8) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a side
yard setback of zero feet instead of the required 15 feet for property located in the
“R-C” Multiple Family District at 3630 Phillips Parkway.
Withdrawn. Mr. Moore reported that Case No. 2-98 VAR has been withdrawn at the
request of the Applicant.
b. Case No. 3-98 VAR -- Request of Sholom Homes for a variance from Section
14:5-4.6(G)(8) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a side yard setback of zero feet
instead of the required 15 feet for property located in the “R-C” Multiple Family
District at 3620 Phillips Parkway.
Withdrawn. Mr. Moore reported that Case No. 3-98 VAR has been withdrawn at the
request of the Applicant.
Chair Roberts closed the floor to public hearings since both requests had been withdrawn
by the Applicants.
66
6. New Business:
a. Case No. 7-97 VAR -- Request for a time extension for a variance granted May
22, 1997 to Lincoln Del to permit 64 parking stalls instead of the required 81
parking stalls.
Mr. Moore updated the Board that in May of 1997, the Board of
Zoning Appeals approved a variance for the Lincoln Del located at 4100
Minnetonka Boulevard. The variance permitted 64 parking stalls instead of the
required 81 parking stalls. The variance was necessary in order for an addition to
be constructed onto the existing building. This addition was necessary to comply
with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements along with other health
and safety code requirements.
Lincoln Del is in the process of trying to secure the financing for the addition and
believe construction to be started this summer. The maximum extension which
could be granted would be until April 1999.
If the Board decides to approve the time extension, a resolution approving such
action is attached to the Staff Report.
Chair Roberts asked for clarification as to whether this case was subject to public
hearing or just Board approval. Mr. Moore reported that it was not subject to
public hearing.
Ms. Bloyer moved to grant the variance based on the Staff Report. Mr. Reel
seconded the motion. Motion Passed Unanimously.
Mr. Moore explained that this extends the variance for one year until April 1999
and, if necessary, the Applicant will have to apply again next year to further
extend the variance.
7. Communication:
a. City Council Action for Variance Request 1-98-VAR at 7200 Cedar Lake
Road.
Mr. Moore reported that earlier this year the Board had heard a variance request by the
Citco Station located on Cedar Lake Road. The request was for the car wash to be
located 22 feet from the residential property line. The City Council worked with the
Applicant and developed a revised cite plan, moving the location of the car wash onto the
north side of the building. A lesser set back variance of approximately 45 feet was still
necessary and was granted. The City is in the process of going through the Conditional
67
Use Permit process with the Applicant and construction is scheduled to begin this
summer.
b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments:
Mr. Moore reported that this is in reference to an Ordinance Amendment which has been
rewritten to permit outdoor recreational facilities such as baseball fields and football
fields areas to increase their pole height from 60 feet to 80 feet.
8. Miscellaneous: Officer Elections.
Chair Roberts postponed Officer Elections to the next regularly scheduled meeting due to
Mr. Gainsley’s absence.
9. Adjournment:
Ms. Bloyer moved and Mr. Reel seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned.
Motion Passed Unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott Moore
Zoning Administrator
68
Item #9h*
IMMEDIATE PAY, WORKER’S COMP
AND DENTAL BENEFITS
through May 29, 1998
VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMP $56.50
MEDICAL ANESTHESIA LTD WORKERS COMP $211.71
METHODIST HOSPITAL WORKERS COMP $467.45
ORTHOPAEDIC CONSULTANTS WORKERS COMP $453.90
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM WORKERS COMP $3.52
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMP $56.50
$1,249.58
VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE $3,332.82
$3,332.82
VENDOR DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $1,433.38
ANCHOR FENCE OF MN INC. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $10,896.50
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $203.00
GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $4,226.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $1,012.82
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $1,503.65
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $236.44
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $9,768.01
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $1,947.00
MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $321.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS $145.93
MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $1,515.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $89,346.57
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $43,181.76
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $3,314.02
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $8,078.72
PIRES, CLINTON E GENERAL SUPPLIES $78.13
SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS-LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $803.60
SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $31,097.53
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE $6,033.22
$215,142.28
69
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11a
Meeting of June 2, 1998
11a. Excelsior Boulevard Median Islands from Trunk Highway 100 to Methodist
Hospital Entrance - Project No. 98-02
This report considers the construction of median islands on Excelsior Boulevard
from Trunk Highway 100 to Methodist Hospital entrance and execution of a
Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County authorizing the City to perform the
work.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting the City
Engineer’s Report, establishing Project No. 98-02, ordering
Project No. 98-02, approving plans and specifications,
authorizing receipt of bids, and approving a Cooperative
Agreement with Hennepin County.
Background: At it’s May 18, 1998 meeting, the City Council considered the proposed median
island construction project and deferred the project to the June 2, 1998 meeting. The project was
deferred to allow Pink Business Interiors (PBI) additional time to consider alternative median
designs and the internal parking lot impacts at their facility.
On Wednesday, May 27, 1998 staff met with representatives from PBI and their traffic consultant
to review their findings and suggestions. If the median islands are to be constructed, PBI has
requested three (3) minor revisions to the plan. The first revision is to increase the turn lane
length for the westbound left turn into their property at Zarthan Avenue. This change would
reduce the left turn lane at Yosemite Avenue for eastbound traffic. The traffic volumes at
Yosemite Avenue are low enough that City and County staff support this change.
The second revision is to move the end of the island nose on the west side of Zarthan Avenue 38
feet west to allow adequate room for semi-tractor trailers to head west from the PBI easterly
driveway. The remaining 38 feet would be striped with double yellow lines. Hennepin County
staff has indicated they cannot support this change. However, Hennepin County did recommend
moving the end of the median island 15 feet to the west and having the next eight (8) feet
designed as a mountable curb should a semi-tractor trailer cross the island. City staff concurs
with Hennepin County on this recommendation.
The third revision is to narrow the taper by a couple of feet on the eastbound approach to the left
turn lane at Zarthan Avenue. This request would allow additional room for semi-tractor trailers
to make the right turn into the westerly driveway of PBI. Hennepin County staff has indicated
they can support this change.
70
Financial Issues: Representatives of PBI have indicted that the change in their parking lot
traffic due to the median island construction will necessitate some reconstruction work. PBI has
indicated to staff that they feel their parking lot changes are necessary and are requesting the City
pay for the reconstruction costs. Although no design or cost estimates have been developed, the
reconstruction costs could be in the range of $30,000 to $40,000. Staff indicated there is no
money budgeted for this additional work and that the City Council would be advised of their
request.
Additional Issue: During the review and analysis of pedestrian safety along Excelsior
Boulevard one intersection stood out as having significant visibility problems. This is the
Brunswick Avenue intersection and the lack of visibility of both pedestrians and drivers
approaching the intersection from the north seeing oncoming traffic from the east. As a result
staff performed field checks and recommends the two westerly parking spaces in the parking bay
be eliminated and included in the median island construction project. Should the Council agree,
staff would recommend that at least three additional spaces be added via changes in existing
parking restrictions along the east side of Brunswick Avenue. Staff also recommends the
Council authorize a reduction of the abutting property owner’s assessment for the parking bay’s
cost prorated for each parking stall (estimated at $1,570 each x 2 = $3,140). Staff has reviewed
this proposal with the property owner and he is agreeable to the proposed changes.
Hennepin County Agreements: Hennepin County has requested that the City execute a
Cooperative Agreement to perform the work on Excelsior Boulevard (County Road 3). Although
the Agreement is a standard form, there are several conditions which should be highlighted. The
conditions are as follows:
1. City agrees to pay the total construction cost, now estimated to be $78,000.00.
2. The City understands that Hennepin County has tentatively scheduled the reconstruction
of this segment of Excelsior Boulevard for 2003.
3. The maintenance and repair of the medians is the City’s responsibility at no cost to the
County.
4. The City agrees to indemnify and hold the County harmless for any actions arising during
the construction of the median islands.
Should the Council agree with the terms of the proposed Agreement with Hennepin County and
order the project, it will be necessary to execute the Cooperative Agreement to facilitate the
construction. The City Attorney has reviewed the cooperative agreement and found it
satisfactory.
Attachments: Resolution
Agreement not attached but available for review upon request
Prepared By: Carlton B. Moore/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
71
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 98-02,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 98-02,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 98-02
AND APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the Excelsior Boulevard median islands from Trunk Highway 100 to
Methodist Hospital entrance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the proposed Excelsior Boulevard median islands
from Trunk Highway 100 to Methodist Hospital entrance under Project No. 98-02 is
hereby accepted.
2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 98-02 is hereby established.
3. Project No. 98-02 is hereby ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement as prepared under the
direction of the Director of Public Works are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvement under said approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than twenty one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received
by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the
City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The bids shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his
tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
7. A Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County is hereby approved.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
72
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
73
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11b
Meeting of June 2, 1998
11b. Ground Lease, Development and Joint Use Agreement with Benilde-St.
Margaret’s School.
Council is being asked to authorize execution of an agreement between the City and
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School (BSM) which would allow BSM to provide funding
for the construction of six new tennis courts on City-owned property located at Belt
Line Boulevard and West 36th Street (Bass Lake Park).
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Ground Lease, Development and Joint Use Agreement prepared
by the City Attorney as described in the attached report.
Background: At a study session last April, Council considered a proposal by which BSM would
provide capital funding for the construction of six new tennis courts to replace the courts which
were lost during the redevelopment of Wolfe Park. Council responded favorably to the proposal,
and eventually selected the west side of the Bass Lake site for the project.
The City Attorney has been working with legal councel from BSM to draft a Ground Lease,
Development and Joint Use Agreement (see attached draft). The intent of the Agreement is to
allow BSM to construct six tennis courts at their cost on City property. In return the City would
agree to reimburse 50% of the construction cost (up to $75,000) over a ten year period, with the
understanding that BSM would be given first priority for use of the courts during that ten year
period. At all other times, the courts would be available for public use and would be operated
and maintained by the City as public tennis facilities.
Schedule: BSM is hoping to begin construction as soon as possible so that the six new courts
will be available for use by the school’s tennis teams in August. In order to meet that objective,
it is necessary for Council to authorize execution of this agreement in a timely fashion. BSM has
already selected a reputable contractor who will be able to construct the 6-court tennis facility at
a cost equal to or below the anticipated budget. Jim Vaughan (Manager of Grounds and Natural
Resources) will be working with private consultant Greg Ingraham on the City’s behalf to ensure
that the project is developed in accordance with established City guidelines and priorities.
Attachments: Ground Lease, Development and Joint Use Agreement draft
(On file in clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Cristofer A. Gears, Director of Parks and Recreation
74
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11c*
Meeting of June 2, 1998
11c*. Joint Powers Agreement with the Metropolitan Council for Bus Stop Signage.
To consider a request by the Met Council that the City perform the installation,
replacement, and maintenance of bus stop signage on their behalf.
Recommended
Action:
By consent, motion to approve the Met Council Joint Powers
Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute
the Agreement on behalf of the City.
Background: The City received a request from the Metropolitan Council to participate in a bus
stop sign installation, replacement, and maintenance program. Metro Transit (Metropolitan
Council) has no crew to install, replace or maintain bus stop signs. The Agreement calls for the
Met Council to supply all materials and pay for all reasonable costs of the City on a per unit basis
to retrofit 278 existing signs, install 137 signs on existing structures, and install 199 signs with
new holders, and to pay for all reasonable costs in providing ongoing maintenance.
Reimbursable costs include administrative costs such as those related to SignView, our
information management system for signs.
Staff has reviewed the Agreement and feels it is a good opportunity to be reimbursed for a free
service we have in the past offered as a part of the City’s sign maintenance program. The
agreement as written allows for us to either break even or make a little money for our trouble.
The City Attorney is reviewing the document and found it acceptable except for one provision,
which we are currently negotiating, relating to following all applicable laws in sign installation.
The requirements of the Agreement will not create any problems for the City in its regular
business.
Attachments:
Joint Powers Agreement with Metropolitan Council (on file in City Clerk’s Office)
Prepared by: Mike Roth, Administrative Assistant
75
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11d*
Meeting of June 2, 1998
11d*. Set Public Hearing for Revision of Water Ordinance
This request begins the process to amend ordinance section 9-113 to incorporate the
community response steps and trigger levels established in the Water Contingency
and Conservation Plan and provide for their enforcement.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to schedule a public hearing on June 15, 1998, at 7:30
p.m. for an ordinance to amend City Code section 9-113.
Background: On April 20, Council adopted the Water Contingency and Conservation Plan and
incorporated it into the City’s Comprehensive Plan currently undergoing revision. The plan calls
for the City to adopt an ordinance that will include the capacity and supply limits, emergency
management controls, and establish an enforcement policy. The plan includes five levels of
water shortages and community response steps for each level. An enforcement policy was to be
developed.
Discussion: City Code section 9-113, Restrictions on Water Use, currently allows the Council or
the City Manager to restrict water use in case of water shortage or a capacity problem with the
system. It requires the council to act through resolution or the Manager to certify in writing that
there is a reduction in the capacity of the system which is an immediate threat to the ability of the
system to meet demands upon it by users. What constitutes a threat and what an appropriate
response is are not discussed.
The recently adopted Water Conservation and Contingency Plan describes five levels of water
shortage in terms of supply capacity (how much we are pumping and treating) and storage
capacity (how much is currently in our reservoirs). It also includes appropriate community
response steps for each level. These steps are based upon historical data for the summer and
winter months. This section can be directly incorporated into Section 9-113 of the City Code to
include the capacity and supply limits as well as emergency management controls called for in
the Water Contingency and Conservation Plan.
Section 9-113 also calls for a noncompliance charge to be added to the water bill for failure to
comply with the restrictions. The noncompliance charge process, described in section 9-102,
calls for the City Manager to fix the charge in writing, but does not discuss what an appropriate
charge would be. Also, the Superintendent of Utilities is authorized to shut off water service to
any connection any time he is satisfied that the owner or occupant of the premises intentionally
violates any requirements of the ordinances of the City relative to the water supply system of
connections therewith or any provisions of the code.
76
To further clarify an enforcement policy, the City could include an additional sentence in its
ordinance to call for a specific noncompliance charge ($25). Also, failure to comply after two
violations would result in discontinuation of service. This will give the City a clear penalty plus
options for further enforcement.
Staff has reviewed water restriction ordinances from Edina, Richfield, Bloomington, and Eden
Prairie, and found that the proposed enforcement provisions are fairly standard. Staff also had a
discussion on the mechanics of enforcement and feels the administrative fine is the least
complicated, most cost-effective enforcement option. Actual enforcement of the ordinance
would be on an as-reported basis unless an emergency justifies stronger enforcement, in which
case public works personnel, police and fire reserves could be called upon to do a coordinated
enforcement effort. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and sees no problems.
He also concurs with the administrative fine as the simplest enforcement provision.
Attachments:
schedule of amendment process
proposed amendments to Section 9-113, City Code of Ordinances
Prepared by: Mike Roth, Administrative Assistant
77
Schedule of Amendment Process
Action Date
Council Report June 2, 1998
Public Hearing Notice June 3, 1998
Public Hearing, First Reading June 15, 1998
Second Reading July 6, 1998
Summary Publication July 8, 1998
78
Section 9-113. Restrictions on Water Use. To Avoid a water shortage due to a water supply or
storage capacity problem in the water system, the City may impose restrictions on the use of
water for lawn sprinkling and irrigation. Restrictions may be imposed by the City Council by
resolution or by the City Manager. Action by the City Manager shall be upon a written
certification finding that there is a reduction of water supply or storage capacity in the City water
system which is an immediate threat to the ability of the system to meet demands upon it by
users. Such written certification shall specify the details of restrictions being imposed upon
water use. The response steps as established in the Water Contingency and Conservation Plan
shall be imposed by the City Manager when trigger levels are met. The storage capacity trigger
levels occur when levels cannot be maintained over a period of 1 to 3 days.
Community Response Steps
Response Step 1 A voluntary conservation request is issued by the City Manager.
Customers are asked to limit outdoor watering between noon
and 6:00 p.m.. Customers with odd-numbered street adresses
alternate outdoor watering with even-numbered addresses. All
municipal operations are placed on mandatory conservation
with park irrigation limited as defined by the directors of parks
and public works.
Response Step 2 A mandatory water conservation decree is issued by the City
Manager. Outdoor watering is limited for customers as
described in Response Step 1.
Response Step 3 A mandatory water conservation decreee is issued, liming
outdoor watering by cutomers to once every five days.
Watering of trees will be allowed on an even-odd address basis.
No watering between noon and 6:00 p.m. No private car
washing will be allowed. Special water users, as designated by
the City Manager, may be allowed a supplemental water
allowance in order to maintain operations.
Response Step 4 A mandatory water conservation decreee is issued, banning all
lawn watering. Major industrial/commercial users over 10,000
gpd may be restricted at the discretion of the City Manager.
Response Step 5 A mandatory water conservation decree is issued, placing
weekly limits on water use by all customers. Limits shall be set
at the discretion of the City Manager, based on available supply
system capacity , priority of users, and other pertinent
considerations (i.e., nursing homes, hospitals, child care centers
and schools).
79
Community Response Trigger Levels
Supply System Condition Water Supply
Capacity
Storage
Capacity at
6:00 a.m.
Community
Response Step
Water Shortage Possibility <12.5 MGD
(summer)
<10 MGD (winter)
7 mg 1
Water Shortage Watch <11.5 MGD
(summer)
<9 MGD (winter)
6 mg 2
Water Shortage
Emergency- Level 1
<10.5 MGD
(summer)
<8 MGD (winter)
5 mg 3
Water Shortage
Emergency- Level 2
<9.5 MGD
(summer)
<7 MGD (winter)
4 mg 4
Water Shortage
Emergency- Level 3
<8.5 MGD
(summer)
<6 MGD (winter)
3 mg 5
The certification shall be come effective upon 24 hours of filing of a copy with the City Clerk
who shall endorse on each filing the time and date of filing. The City Manager shall take such
action as is reasonably practicable to inform the general public of the imposition of restrictions
on water use. Failure to comply with restrictions imposed pursuant to this section will result in a
$25 noncompliance charge which will be added to the water bill of the property. Failure to
comply with the restrictions imposed after two documented violations is grounds for
discontinuance of water service.
80
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11e*
Meeting of June 2, 1998
11e*. Traffic Study No. 530: No Parking Loading Zone in Front of 3312 Gorham
Avenue
This report considers “No Parking Anytime” at 3312 Gorham Avenue from a point
180 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W. and proceeding south to a
point 225 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to accept this report for filing and adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the parking restrictions described above.
Background: The Traffic Division has received a request from Community Connections
Partnership at 3312 Gorham Avenue to provide a loading and unloading zone in front of their
building. Community Connections Partnership serves persons with physical and developmental
disabilities in a vocational setting.
DISCUSSION: Community Connections Partnership is requesting a no parking zone in front of
their building for loading and unloading of persons with disabilities. Their need is to provide
accessibility for a handicapped bus or medi-van to have access at their outwalk. Many of the
persons they serve have difficulties with ambulations due to various conditions such as; birth
defects, traumatic brain injury, etc.. Staff considers the request to be valid and supports the
initiation of a no parking zone in front of 3312 Gorham Avenue.
This recommendation is based upon:
• The need for short term drop off and pick-up of disabled persons near this address
• The amount of other public parking available to other users in the area (The city lot at
Gorham and 1st Street is nearby)
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council:
* 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of
the parking regulations may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
* Staff recommendation is to approve the request.
Attachments: Traffic Study
Resolution
Prepared By: Harlan Backlund/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
cmr
N:\GROUP\PW\Harlan/TS/TS530.DOC
81
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING CONTROLS
IN FRONT OF 3312 GORHAM AVENUE
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 530
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 ANYTIME - LOADING ZONE" at 3312 Gorham Avenue from a point
180 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W and proceeding south to a point
225 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
82
TO: MIKE RARDIN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: HARLAN BACKLUND, TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: May 18, 1998
RE: Parking Restrictions at 3312 Gorham Avenue South
BY: Debra L. Carlson
Community Connections Partnership
3312 Gorham Avenue
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
BACKGROUND: The Traffic Division has received a request from Community Connections
Partnership at 3312 Gorham Avenue to provide a loading and unloading zone in front of their
building. Community Connections Partnership serves persons with physical and developmental
disabilities in a vocational setting.
DISCUSSION: Community Connections Partnership is requesting a no parking zone in front of
their building for loading and unloading of persons with disabilities. Their need is to provide
accessibility for a handicapped bus or medi-van to have access at their outwalk. Many of the
persons they serve have difficulties with ambulations due to various conditions such as; birth
defects, traumatic brain injury, etc.. Staff considers the request to be valid and supports the
initiation of a no parking zone in front of 3312 Gorham Avenue.
This recommendation is based upon:
• The need for short term drop off and pick-up parking near this address
• The amount of other public parking available in the area (Gorham Lot is nearby)
AREA: Along the west side of Gorham from a point 180 feet south of the south
curb line of 2nd Street N.W and proceeding south to a point 225 feet south
of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W.
RESTRICTION: No Parking Anytime - Loading Zone
EXCEPTION: Emergency, government and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted.
83
DURATION: Until the restriction is no longer needed by Community Connections
Partnership and is rescinded by resolution.
SIGNAGE: By City forces.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended to proceed with the following parking control
plan:
Provide for "NO PARKING ANYTIME - LOADING ZONE". from a
point 180 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd Street N.W and
proceeding south to a point 225 feet south of the south curbline of 2nd
Street N.W. A total of 45 feet in front of 3312 Gorham Avenue.
84
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11f
Meeting of June 2, 1998
11f. Confirmation of the appointment of Clint Pires as Deputy City Manager
This action confirms the appointment by the City Manager of Clint Pires to the
position of Deputy City Manager effective August 1, 1998.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to confirm the appointment of Clint Pires as Deputy City
Manager effective August 1, 1998.
Background:
The resignation of Joanne Kutzler has created a vacancy in the office of Deputy City Manager.
Discussions between the City Manager, Department Heads and other staff members indicated
that a thorough knowledge of the City’s organizational structure and culture was viewed as key to
the success of the position. The position was posted internally and Clint Pires, formerly the
Manager of Information Technologies, has been selected to fill the postion.
Staff feels that the respect and trust Mr. Pires has developed during his 17 years of service to the
City coupled with his strong management experience will enable him to immediately step into
the role and perform well as Deputy City Manager.
Mr. Pires is currently serving as Acting Deputy City Manager and when called upon will also
serve as Acting City Manager from May 1, 1998 through July 31, 1998.
Prepared by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager