HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/08/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 17, 1998
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of August 3, 1998
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. City Council Study Session meeting of July 27, 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
6. Public Hearing
2
6a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving - 3700 Block between France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue - Project No. 94-23.
This report considers paving the alley in the 3700 Block between France Avenue
and Glenhurst Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
Resolution ordering Project No. 94-23, the construction of a
concrete alley in the 3700 Block between France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue, approving plans and specifications and
authorizing receipt of bids.
6b. Assessment Hearing for Project 94-23 at the 3700 Block of France and
Glenhurst Avenues
Alley paving construction located at the 3700 block of France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue (see attached map)
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 94-23
6c. Amendment to Special Permit at 3401 Louisiana Avenue (Park Tavern)
Case No. 98-26-CUP
Park Tavern is requesting a major amendment to the Special Permit for Park Tavern
to allow for an expansion onto the existing building for the purpose of private
indoor entertainment.
Recommended
Action:
Recommend adoption of a resolution approving the amendment
subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
6d. Holy Family Fall Festival Application
The Holy Family Church will conduct its annual fall festival on September 11th,
12th, and 13th, 1998 and has applied for an exemption from the lawful gambling
license, a temporary 3.2 beer license, and a temporary parking restriction.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the temporary 3.2 beer license for September
11th, 12th, and 13th, 1997. Motion to adopt the resolution
allowing for a temporary parking restriction.
6e. Resolution for Gambling Premises Permit for O’Tooles Pub at 4608 Excelsior
Boulevard
St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association Gambling Premises license at 4608
3
Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close the public hearing. Motion to defer decision
on this item to meeting of September 3, 1998.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications
7a. Variance Appeal, 5911 Oxford Street
Case No. 5-98-VAR
James and Audry Burt are requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals’
decision denying the original variance requests to permit a total floor area for all
accessory buildings of 1,870 sq. ft. instead of the maximum 800 sq. ft., a side yard
setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet and a rear yard setback of 1 foot
instead of the required 2 feet.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Council defer the variance
request and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
which would permit the reconstruction of damaged or destroyed
non-conforming accessory structures
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Possession of Knives or Edged Weapons in School Zones Ordinance
A proposal amending Chapter 12 of the St. Louis Park City Code concerning the
possession of dangerous edged weapons on school property.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to waive first reading of ordinance without the Exempt
Persons clause and set second reading for September 8, 1998
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Planning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*b. Housing Authority Minutes of July 8, 1998
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*c. Vendor Claim Report
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
4
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s)
11. New Business
11a*. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for purchase of Granular
Activated Carbon.
This report is for the authorization to advertise and received bids for the purchase of
Granular Activated Carbon for the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 - 2935 Jersey
Avenue South.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
ordering the purchase of GAC, approving the specifications, and
authorizing receipt of bids.
*11b. School District #283 request for funding from Cable TV franchise fees
School District #283 requested $25,000 for 1998 and made a presentation detailing
future needs of $37,047 in 1999 at the May 5, 1998 Cable TV Advisory
Commission meeting.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the 1998 School District request for $25,000,
and budget up to $7,500 for an equipment grant in 1999 from
Cable TV Franchise Fees, contingent upon the receipt of further
information requested of the School District.
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
5
Item 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 3, 1998
1. Call to Order - Mayor Pro-tem Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Presentation - Junior Leader Recognition
Doug, Langefels, Recreational Services Manager of the Parks and Recreation Department
briefly explained the City’s summer playground program for kids between the ages of
Kindergarten and 6th grade. Patty Reno, 1998 Summer Junior Park Leader Coordinator,
presented recognition certificates to 64 volunteer junior park leaders who completed the
program.
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present: Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger,
Ron Latz, Robert Young, and Jim Brimeyer. Also present were the City Manager (Mr.
Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); and Planning Associate (Ms.
Peterson).
4. Approval of Minutes
City Council meeting of July 20, 1998. With one minor change (Page 9, Change
Crayling to Kraehling), the minutes were approved as presented.
City Council study session meeting of July 13, 1998. The minutes were approved as
presented.
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Young to approve
the consent agenda with removal of Item 11b per City Manager. The motion passed 6-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to
approve the agenda. The motion passed 6-0.
6
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. 8332 Highway 7 (Knollwood Mall)
Case Number 98-16-CUP
Resolution #98-103
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development, gave a staff report and indicated
that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended special
use permit subject to the modified conditions based upon the revised plan outlined in the
staff report. It was noted that the applicant had reviewed and accepted modified
conditions.
Councilmember Nelson was concerned about the impact on the mall without any direct
access to Cub Foods.
Bill Mauston, Development Director of General Growth Properties indicated that access
to the mall was examined, but he didn’t believe there would be direct cross-shopping
between the grocery store and the mall. He believed the addition of Cub Foods would
benefit the mall by creating shopping center awareness and customer traffic.
Councilmember Sanger asked what had been done to make it easier and safer for
bicyclists to come to the store. She suggested striping a bike lane within the parking lot
and adding more bike racks.
Mr. Mauston stated that a sidewalk was added to the north side of the mall. The addition
of a stoplight on 36th street behind the mall was discussed, but since it was a City street,
options needed to be to worked on with City.
Councilmember Young asked Mr. Mauston to clarify the reason for cutting off the store
from access to the mall.
Mr. Mauston stated that rear store space that was used as an an entrance to mall in the
past will now be used for loading dock and warehouse space.
Councilmember Young expressed his concerned that the loading dock change may not
have been a good trade off. He indicated that residents were expecting and hoped that
mall entrance to the grocery store would remain.
Councilmember Latz suggested using existing unused mall space to provide a mall
entrance to the grocery store. He expressed his appreciation to General Growth
7
Companies and Cub Foods for working to respond to the neighborhood safety and noise
concerns on this project.
Mr. Mauston indicated that the relocation of the loading docks established loading and
warehouse space across the entire back of the store and any entrance would have to go
back through this space.
Jeff Green, 3541 Virginia Avenue South, asked what the projected hours of operation of
the north dock would be.
Craig Mevisson of Super Value explained that the hours of operation of the north dock
would be 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. with an approximate one hour unloading time.
Donna Vasser, 3544 Virginia Avenue South, asked the applicant to review location of
trash compactors and was concerned about noise to residential area.
Councilmember Latz indicated that noise level could be monitored and reduced if it
became a problem.
Marsha McDermitt, 3545 Wyoming Avenue South, appreciated modifications to plan.
She asked if hours of operation could be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She was
concerned about increased traffic and impact on current crosswalk and suggested having
the crosswalk monitored.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager stated that he would pass the concern for crosswalk
enforcement on the Police Department.
Mr. Mevisson stated that he had referred to the hours of operation allowed in current
ordinance, and noted that approximately 90 % of fresh produce deliveries would take
place during the morning hours.
Bob Shattuck of Jerry Foods indicated he would like to proceed with hours indicated in
current ordinance and evaluate problems as they developed.
Mr. Meyer reviewed the importance of having one consistent set of times for hours of
operation as stated in the current ordinance established in 1992.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to adopt a
resolution approving the special permit amendment subject to the conditions included in
the resolution. The motion passed 5-1. Councilmember Young opposed.
8b. Vacation of storm sewer easement at 7244 Cedar Lake Road
Case No. 98-17-VAC
Ordinance #2123-98
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve
Second Reading of the proposed ordinance, approved ordinance summary, and authorize
publication. The motion passed 5-0. Councilmember Latz was out of Council Chambers.
8c. Methodist Hospital Minor Amendment to Special (Conditional) Use Permit
Case No. 98-23-CUP
8
Resolution #98-104
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, gave a staff report and recommended that Council
approve the minor amendment with the conditions added to the existed Special Use
Permit as indicated in staff report. She indicated that this parking proposal was only short
term solution and long range solutions needed to remain a focus of Methodist Hospital.
Councilmember Jacobs was concerned about the narrow width of the physician drive
aisle and suggested reconfiguring the aisle to some form of angle parking.
Tim Theno, SRF Consulting Group stated that though it was narrow, the parking design
was adequate. He indicated that angle parking provided less parking and inconsistent
types of parking throughout the parking lot design would cause traffic flow problems. He
suggested that the center line stripe of each aisle be moved west to increase width of the
physician aisle.
Mr. Harmening briefly reviewed the city parking standards.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he didn’t have a concern with the narrow lot since it
was one-way and a private lot.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager reiterated that Methodist Hospital needed a parking ramp and
stressed that the hospital focus on this point in spite of past opposition from the
neighborhood.
Councilmember Nelson stated that it was important for Methodist Hospital to work
closely with the neighborhoods to gain their support and to complete a successful ramp
project.
Councilmembers concurred with the City Manager’s observation.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
adopt a resolution approving the minor amendment to the Special Use Permit subject to
the conditions included in the resolution. The motion passed 6-0.
8d. Aquila Place Preliminary Plat
Case No. 98-18-S
Resolution #98-105
Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development, gave a staff report and indicated
that staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat
subject to the 11 conditions outlined in the resolution.
Councilmember Sanger asked what would happen if Council approved the Preliminary
Plat, but MET Council didn’t approve Comp Plan change or the map wasn’t amended.
Mr. Harmening stated that the conditions in the resolution contain a provision that if the
Comp Plan was not amended to move trail designation, the final plan had to designate a
trail easement on the 11 lots.
9
Councilmember Latz indicated that he has expressed his concerns about the development
in the past and indicated that he was opposed to the approval of the Preliminary Plat.
Councilmember Jacobs explained that City Council had reviewed potential sources of
funds to purchase the property and were unable to locate any funding sources.
Mr. Scott, City Attorney explained that the City with extension had 120 days from the
date of a completed application to act or the Preliminary Plat would be deemed approval.
Mr. Meyer asked if the City did not act within 120 days, would the City be able to place
conditions upon the approval.
Mr. Scott did not recommend taking this approach and believed there would be questions
left open that couldn’t be answered until that time.
Councilmember Brimeyer desired creative housing design to keep buffer of trees and
Councilmember Sanger suggested transplanting trees within the property.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to
adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions included in the
resolution and add the condition to be in full compliance with the Tree Replacement
Ordinance. The motion passed 5-1. Councilmember Latz opposed.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 1, 1998
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
b. Cable TV Advisory commission Meeting Minutes of June 18, 1998
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
c. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
10a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) - None
11. New Business
11a. Consultant Retention for Project Design Services for the Hutchinson Spur
Regional Trail
By consent, Council moved to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a
Contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) for Project Design Services for the
Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail.
11b. Bid Tabulation: Excelsior Boulevard Median Construction West of Trunk
10
Highway 100 - Project No. 98-02
Mr. Rardin, Director of Public Works gave a brief staff report and recommended
approval.
Councilmember Nelson expressed his appreciation to staff for their efforts to work with
the County on this project and County Commissioner who were involved in the project.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to
designate Midwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $129,828.60. The motion passed
6-0.
11c. Bid Tabulation: Water Reservoir Tank Repair W. 42nd Street/Zarthan
Avenue - Project No. 98-08
By consent, Council moved to designate LeadCon, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $218,560.00.
11d. Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Auditor’s
Management Report and Recommendations for the Year Ended
December 31, 1997
By consent, Council moved to accept reports.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments
a. Contract payments
Resolutions #98-107 and 98-108
Final
Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. - Contract No. 19-98 $ 2,802.17
Random concrete repair
Allied Blacktop - Contract No. 18-98 $ 40,490.57
Contract sealcoating
By consent, Council adopted Resolutions #98-107 and 98-108.
Partial
Midwest Asphalt Corporation - Contract No. 17-98 $ 96,598.41
Ford Road/Shelard Parkway/Ford Lane
Hardrives, Inc. - Contract No. 14-98 $ 174,117.38
11
Construction of Excelsior Boulevard
Phase 2 - Monterey Ave. to France Ave.
Hardrives, Inc. - Contract No. 16-98 $ 79,412.88
W. 35th/W. 36th/W. 23rd/W. 24th Street/Utica Avenue
By consent, Council approved and authorized payments.
14. Communications - None
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed 6-0.
City Clerk Mayor
12
Item 4b
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
July 27, 1998
The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Ron Latz,
Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Gail Dorfman.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer); Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening); Planning Manager (Ms. Jeremiah); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Public Works
Administrative Assistant (Mr. Roth); Recreation Program Coordinator (Ms. Buskey); and City
Clerk (Ms. Larsen)
1. Trails and Sidewalks Council Workshop
Council met with staff and consultants to discuss issues related to creating a Trails and Sidewalks
Master Plan for the City. Barry Warner of SRF Consulting Group and Bob Close of Close
Landscape Architecture lead the discussion.
Mr. Close presented a proposed timeline and indicated steps to be undertaken to complete the
trail and sidewalk plan. Various methods for soliciting public input were discussed, such as
surveys, open houses and other public meetings. Also considered was the timing of the project
as it relates to amendments to the comprehensive plan. Ms. Erickson indicated that an extension
to the comp plan amendments would be requested.
Mr. Warner presented maps indicating the current status of components of the regional trail
system. He also presented an illustration of existing St. Louis Park sidewalks and trails as well
as the existing land use map.
Discussion as to how development of this plan would affect residents ensued.
Councilmember Nelson expressed concern about cost to residents of the City and questioned
whether there would be assessments or whether the city would pay for improvements.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that she did not wish to impose a plan on the residents all at
once, but would rather work toward achieving goals over a period of time. She felt issues of
concern to residents were who would pay for the sidewalks and who would maintain them. She
wanted a consistent policy on cost and maintenance of the system.
13
Councilmember Jacobs said that residents who had already been assessed and are currently
maintaining their sidewalks may have a problem with a city-wide financing system for new
sidewalks.
Councilmember Brimeyer Compared the City’s sidewalk and trail system to a sewer system with
main lines and feeder systems. He felt that we should concentrate on the main lines and principal
feeders now and refine the system’s detail in the future. He also felt that for trails of regional
value the City should pay the greater portion of the cost for construction and maintenance.
Conversely, he felt that for sidewalks and trails of more local value the residents should pay for
the greater portion.
Council, Staff and the Consultants discussed the following issues and opportunities: block
connections on sidewalks; transit considerations; resident assessment vs. City spending; snow
removal issues; in line skaters; recreation vs. commuter use of trails and sidewalks; dead end
streets; highway barriers; at-grade crossings; senior needs; open space trails; safety and security
issues; park connections; and sidewalk provisions in the subdivision ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City actually owned the sidewalks. Mr. Meyer offered to get
a legal opinion on that questions.
Council also discussed Task Force composition and considered which groups should have
representation. Council agreed that the group should have representation from bike commuters;
recreational bicycle riders; children; and representatives of the Planning, Parks and Recreation
and Neighborhood Revitalization Commissions.
2. Enforcement of non-conforming uses
Councilmember Nelson raised the issue of non-conforming accessory structures. An issue had
come before Council recently where the garage of a non-conforming use had been destroyed by
an explosion and under current ordinance was not allowed to be rebuilt. Councilmember
Nelson’s concern was that the loss of the accessory structure did not make the non-conforming
use go away and that the loss of the structure could cause a deterioration in the quality of the
main structure.
Councilmember Latz asked Mr. Moore what kinds of structures would be considered accessory.
Mr. Moore stated that they would be garages and sheds.
After discussion, Staff agreed to evaluate the impact of accessory structures and bring the issue
forward to Council at a later date.
3. Tree Replacement Ordinance
14
Councilmember Sanger felt that the City needed a strong tree replacement ordinance in
residential districts. Mr. Harmening pointed out the difficulty in meeting provisions already
included in the City’s tree replacement ordinance. Councilmember Jacobs said that he had no
desire to control how people landscape their private property and did not want to see City
Inspectors in resident’s back yards.
Councilmember Young was concerned that restrictions imposed through such an ordinance
would make construction of new homes in St. Louis Park very difficult.
4. Housing Rehabilitation Programs
Staff met with Council to request direction about the expansion of single family and multifamily
rehabilitation programs currently operating and also requested consideration of increasing the
sue of outside contractors for the administration of these programs. Ms. Brownstein outlined the
programs currently existing and responded to Council questions.
Councilmember Sanger asked if funds could be targeted toward particular neighborhoods. where
improvement in housing was needed. Ms. Brownstein indicated that modifications to existing
programs could make targeting blighted areas easier.
Mayor Dorfman asked how funds could be used to benefit low income single family homes. Ms.
Brownstein responded that by changing income guidelines for some of our existing programs the
funds could be better directed to where they can make an impact in the community.
Councilmember Nelson asked if there was a reward or recognition program for remodeling
projects in the City. Ms. Brownstein said that there was not currently a program in place.
Councilmember Sanger said that she felt codes should be stronger on exterior code standards.
Ms. Brownstein asked that Council consider the creation of special districts for smaller condo
and townhome associations and that Council also consider outsourcing some of its housing
programs to increase staff capacity and improve oversight of housing contractors.
5. Annual Financial Report and Auditor’s Management Report
Rob Tautges of HLB Tautges, Redpath and Co presented an overview of the City’s financial
position based upon the annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 1997. Council
discussed Levy Limits, proposed Legislative actions, various fund balances and Y2K
compliance. Ms. McBride and Mr. Tautges responded to Council inquiries.
15
6. Financing Options for Acquisition of Hutchinson Spur Property
Mr. Meyer gave a brief introduction and history of developments with this piece of property. He
said that he felt the two most viable funding options for purchasing the property would be an
additional tax levy or the use of the Development Fund. He also informed Council about
discussion held with the Land Trust.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the Land Trust would be willing to work with a private
neighborhood group to raise financing necessary for the purchase. Mr. Meyer said that they
would.
Councilmember Latz said that he was working to procure funding from a private group to
purchase the land and donate to the City. He also suggested that the City go out with bonds for
open space acquisition.
Councilmember Brimeyer said that he would not feel comfortable about a referendum unless it
was a package including development of the Oak Park Village area and other Park Improvements
needed in the city.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the timeline was for development of the property.
Mr. Harmening said that he was unsure of specifics, but said that the submission of plans to the
City by the developer was imminent.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the realism of outside funding sources.
Mayor Dorfman said that the City has set precedent in not acting in other cases. She felt this was
not a clear public purpose, but would benefit only one neighborhood.
Councilmember Young was concerned about potential loss of property tax revenue and felt the
cost of acquisition would be a detriment.
Mayor Dorfman said that she was confident that Council was not interested in acquisition of the
property at this time and thanked Councilmember Latz for his efforts.
7. Flooding Problem Study
Pete Willenbring of WSB presented an overview of results of a storm water study and asked for
policy direction from Council. Council discussed each recommended alternative as contained in
the report and also discussed alternatives as they relate to specific properties in the City.
Council also briefly discussed the possibility of funding storm sewer improvements through use
of the utility fund.
16
Mr. Willenbring indicated that the entire study would be complete in early September and would
be presented to Council at that time.
8. Communications
Mayor Dorfman pointed out a letter contained in Council folders from Representative Jim
Rhodes which informed Councilmembers of a meeting Councilmember Sanger had set up with
representative of MNDot to discuss railroads. She encouraged any Councilmembers available to
attend that meeting.
City Clerk Mayor
17
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6a
Meeting of August 17, 1998
6a. Public Hearing: Alley Paving - 3700 Block between France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue - Project No. 94-23.
This report considers paving the alley in the 3700 Block between France Avenue
and Glenhurst Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
Resolution ordering Project No. 94-23, the construction of a
concrete alley in the 3700 Block between France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue, approving plans and specifications and
authorizing receipt of bids.
Background: At its July 20, 1998 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s
Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 3700 Block between France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue, Project No. 94-23, and scheduled a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
for August 17, 1998.
Summarized below is the background information for the Public Hearing scheduled for August
17, 1998:
Project No. 94-23
Location: 3700 Block between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue
Proposed Project: Concrete Alley Paving
Estimated Cost $50,371.00
Assessment Data: The entire cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be assessed to the
abutting property owners. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. The estimated assessment for a 52 foot lot is
$3,238.00 payable over 20 years.
Parcels Within Assessment District: 21
Neighborhood Meeting Comments: On Tuesday, August 4, 1998 staff held a Neighborhood
meeting for abutting property owners to discuss the proposed project. A total of eight (8)
residents representing five (5) properties attended the meeting. Staff reviewed the proposed
project, construction issues and schedule along with the assessment costs. Staff responded to
residents questions and had the preliminary plans available for their review. All the residents
who attended the meeting supported the alley paving project.
18
Attachments: Resolution
City Engineer’s Report
Typical Assessment
Attendance List
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore, Superintendent of Engineering
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
19
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION ORDERING PROJECT NO. 94-23,
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE ALLEY IN THE
3700 BLOCK BETWEEN FRANCE AVENUE AND GLENHURST AVENUE,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF BIDS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from
the City Engineer related to the construction of a concrete alley in the 3700 Block between
France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue - Project No. 94-23.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the improvement is ordered to
be constructed in accordance with the description in the City Engineer’s Report.
2. The plans and specifications for the improvement are hereby approved.
3. 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 of receipt of bids, and specify
the work to be done, state 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 cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to
the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
4. The City Engineer is authorized to advertise for the receipt of bids for Project No. 94-23.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 17, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
20
ATTENDANCE LIST
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
3700 BLOCK FRANCE / GLENHURST
ALLEY PAVING - PROJECT #94-23
Name Address Phone #
George & Toni DuFour 3755 Glenhurst Avenue South 920-1568
Paul & Camille Schroeder 3701 Glenhurst Avenue South 926-6735
Dennis & Nickie Dillon 3707 Glenhurst Avenue South 920-6472
Don Mosker 3754 France Avenue South 920-7232
Bob Kloehn 3725 Glenhurst Avenue South 925-9529
21
REPORT FROM MEETING OF JULY 20, 1998
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of July 20, 1998
*8e. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving - 3700 Block of France Avenue to
Glenhurst Avenue - Project No. 94-23.
This report considers paving the alley in the 3700 Block of France Avenue to
Glenhurst Avenue in response to a petition by property owners.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to accept the attached resolution accepting this report,
establishing improvement Project No. 94-23, directing staff to
sponsor an informational meeting with abutting property owners
and setting a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of
August 17, 1998.
Background: The alley in the 3700 block of France Avenue to Glenhurst Avenue has been
petitioned twice before in 1994 and in 1996. Previous petitions never reached the City Council
as residents withdrew their signatures when informed that City Policy requires abutting property
owners pay 100 percent of the cost. Residents recollect that many years ago (possibly 15 to 30) a
bituminous pavement did exist in the alley and that the City should consider picking up some of
the cost. The petition just received does not contain any provisions for City participation and is
presented as being in compliance with existing City Policy.
Discussion: On June 18, 1998 the City received a petition from over 80% of the abutting
property owners to construct a standard ten foot concrete alley in the 3700 block of France
Avenue to Glenhurst Avenue. Included in the proposed project is construction of driveway apron
connections between the paved alley and abutting paved driveways. Private driveways outside
the alley right of way are the responsibility of the property owner. In accordance with City
Policy, the alley paving project will match the existing materials and grades. It is proposed that
pavement grades be established to provide positive drainage without requiring storm sewer
construction. It will also be necessary to obtain easements for the alley toward the north end as
the existing properties jog and the alley, as used, crosses private property. It is staffs
recommendation that the property owners grant the easements at no cost to the City to
accommodate the proposed alley.
Financial Considerations: The City’s policy for funding alley improvements requires the
abutting property owners to pay 100% of the improvement costs. Due to the age and non-
existence of the old bituminous pavement, staff recommends the existing assessment policy be
22
followed. The policy also provides for the assessments to be levied as direct and indirect benefits
based upon abutting frontage. A summary of the estimated costs and proposed assessments,
based upon the City’s assessment policy for alley improvements is as follows:
Estimated Costs
Construction Costs $34,000.00
Contingency (20%) $7,000.00
Subtotal $41,000.00
Engineering/Administration (12%) $5,000.00
Capitalized Interest (8%) $4,000.00
Subtotal $9,000.00
TOTAL $50,000.00
Revenue Sources
Special Assessments $50,000.00
Alley Improvement Project Timetable:
Should the City approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
could be met:
- City Engineer’s Report to City Council, Council sets date July 20, 1998
for Public hearing and Assessment Hearing.
- Staff holds informational meeting with residents Early August
- City Council holds Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing August 17, 1998
- Advertise for Bids August / September
- Bid Opening September 15, 1998
- End of 30 day appeal period on assessments September 17, 1998
- Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the Bid and order September 21, 1998
the Project or delay the Project if there are any assessment appeals
- Construction September 28 thru
October 30, 1998
Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost effective and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
23
Note: Staff will schedule an informational meeting prior to the Public Hearing / Assessment
Hearing, and will notify the City Council of the meeting place and time.
Attachments: Resolution
Plan
Property Owner List with Estimated Assessments
Prepared by: Carlton B. Moore
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
24
25
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of August 17, 1998
6b. Assessment Hearing for Project 94-23 at the 3700 Block of France and
Glenhurst Avenues
Alley paving construction located at the 3700 block of France Avenue and
Glenhurst Avenue (see attached map)
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the attached
resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 94-23
Background: At its July 20, 1998 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report
for construction of a concrete alley in the 3700 block between France Avenue and Glenhurst
Avenue. The City’s policy for funding alley improvements requires the abutting property owners to
pay 100% of the improvement costs and that a petition is signed by at least 51% of the benefited
property owners. A petition was received by the Assessing Division that was signed by 76% of the
benefited property owners. A neighborhood meeting attended by 5 property owners (8 persons) was
held on August 4, 1998 at 6:30 PM at City Hall. Staff reviewed the proposed construction,
assessment costs and construction schedule. The property owners in attendance at the meeting
favored the construction project and costs.
Estimated cost: $50,371 Total assessed: $50,371
Number of Parcels: 21
Assessment period: 20 years Interest Rate: 6.75%
Assessment charge for a 52 front foot lot (typical): $3,238
First year payment:
principal: $169
interest: $259
total: $421
(see attached for a full 20 year amortization)
Attachments: Assessment Spread Sheets:
(100% special assessments)
(typical 20 year amortization for 52 front foot lot-$3,238)
Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
NAME ADDRESS PID FT INDIRE
CT
DIRECT DRIVEW
AY
TOTAL
Neil Johnson 3700 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0005 70 877 0 877
Melanie Gainsley 3706 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0006 60 752 2984 3736
Paul Schroeder 3701 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0007 63 789 0 789
Dennis & Nickie Dillon 3707 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0008 58 727 2884 3611
Tom & Margie Neiman 3712 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0140 57 714 2835 3549
Tom & Mary Gale 3720 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0141 52 652 0 652
Bruce & Phyllis Bronson 3724 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0142 52 652 0 652
Sonja Howard 3730 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0143 52 652 0 652
John Skoglund Jr 3736 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0144 66 827 0 827
Tim & Lisa Lynch 3744 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0145 90 1128 0 1128
Edith Radder 3750 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0146 52 652 2586 3238
Donald & Nina Mosher 3754 France Ave 06-028-24-44-0147 52 652 0 652
George & Toni Dufour 3755 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0148 52 652 2586 3238
Jon & Jen Ryden-
Salveson
3749 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0149 52 652 2586 3238
R.S Mcivor/Saiko
Yasuda
3745 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0150 52 652 2586 3238
Timothy Nix 3741 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0151 52 652 2586 3238
Jack & Marjorie Mark 3735 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0152 52 652 2586 3238
Sherman & Pat
Malkerson
3731 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0153 52 652 2586 3238
Robert & Nancy Kloehn 3725 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0154 52 652 2586 3238
D Damman & J
McCormick
3721 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0155 60 752 2984 3736
Dan & Elizabeth
Rockers
3713 Glenhurst Ave 06-028-24-44-0156 58 727 2884 3611
1206 15111 35259 50370
27
PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING
3700 BLOCK BETWEEN FRANCE AND GLENHURST AVE
ESTIMATED
COST:
Total $50,371
A. 70% DIRECT BENEFIT direct $35,260
( garage, or drive access )
B. 30% INDIRECT BENEFIT indirect $15,111
( dust, noise, mud, and service )
PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR ESTIMATED
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT== $3,238
INTEREST RATE= 0.068
YEARS ======== 20
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST
YEAR BALANCE PAYMENT PAYMENT TOTAL
1 $3,238 $162 $219 $380
2 $3,076 $162 $208 $370
3 $2,914 $162 $197 $359
4 $2,752 $162 $186 $348
5 $2,590 $162 $175 $337
6 $2,429 $162 $164 $326
7 $2,267 $162 $153 $315
8 $2,105 $162 $142 $304
9 $1,943 $162 $131 $293
10 $1,781 $162 $120 $282
11 $1,619 $162 $109 $271
12 $1,457 $162 $98 $260
13 $1,295 $162 $87 $249
14 $1,133 $162 $76 $238
15 $971 $162 $66 $227
16 $809 $162 $55 $217
17 $648 $162 $44 $206
18 $486 $162 $33 $195
19 $324 $162 $22 $184
20 $162 $162 $11 $173
TOTAL $3,238 $2,295 $5,533
28
RESOLUTION NO.________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
IMPROVEMENT NO. 94-23, ALLEY PAVING IN THE 3700 BLOCK
BETWEEN FRANCE AVENUE AND GLENHURST AVENUE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. Notice of hearing on this improvement was duly mailed on August 3, 1997 and published in
the official city newspaper, the St Louis Park Sailor, on August 5, 1998 and August 12, 1998
as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been given at the
hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment, and the
Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems just is
adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands therein
described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the improvements
in the amount of assessment levied against it.
3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments extending over
the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with general taxes
levied in the year 1998, and payable in the year 1999 , and shall bear interest at the rate of
6.75 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from November 1, 1998 until December 31, 1998, the year in which the
assessment will be levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year
on the total of all unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the
entire assessment is paid at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of
adoption of the assessment resolution.
4. The number of years over which installments are to be extended is as follows:
IMPROVEMENT_NO. TYPE_OF_IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
94-23 ALLEY PAVING 3700 BLOCK BETWEEN
FRANCE AVE.AND
GLENHURST AVENUE
which shall be extended over a period of 20 years.
5. The clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the county auditor to be
extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
29
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 17, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
30
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6c
Meeting of August 17, 1998
6c. Amendment to Special Permit at 3401 Louisiana Avenue (Park Tavern)
Case No. 98-26-CUP
Park Tavern is requesting a major amendment to the Special Permit for Park Tavern
to allow for an expansion onto the existing building for the purpose of private
indoor entertainment.
Recommended
Action:
Recommend adoption of a resolution approving the amendment
subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Background:
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial
Zoning Designation: C-2, General Commercial
The applicant proposes to construct a 1400 square foot addition onto the existing building to be
used for private indoor entertainment (billiards and darts). This addition will be placed onto the
front or the west side of the building. The addition will also require some modifications to the
parking lot and pedestrian circulation areas.
The Planning Commission considered the proposal on August 5, 1998 and recommended
approval on a vote of 6-0 subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Issues:
• Does the proposed addition to the existing structure comply with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
• Are there any concerns with the proposed parking lot and pedestrian circulation designs?
Analysis of Issues:
• Does the proposed addition to the existing structure comply with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
In September of 1997 the applicant applied for a variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BOZA) to permit the expansion without providing any additional parking. The applicant
provided parking counts for the business trying to indicate that the existing parking lot would
provide a sufficient number of parking stalls for their needs.
31
The BOZA denied the applicant’s request and encouraged them to pursue obtaining parking
agreements from the surrounding businesses if they believe the additional parking would not be
used.
The applicant followed the BOZA’s advise and did obtain parking agreements from the Apple
Valley Ready Mix plant (3270 Gorham Avenue), Ready Rents (3320 Republic Avenue), and
Gleason Printing (3325 Republic Avenue). The Zoning Ordinance does permit shared parking
between uses that have opposite peak periods. The three business listed above have a.m. peak
periods, while the Park Tavern has p.m. peak periods. As well, the distance between the parking
areas and an entrance into the building is within the 500 feet maximum travel distance.
The proposal meets the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to setbacks
and architectural design. The exterior of the building is proposed to be stucco to match the
existing building.
• Are there any concerns with the proposed parking lot and pedestrian circulation designs?
With the new addition, the applicant will be removing approximately 5-6 parking stalls. These
stalls are currently located just south of the main entrance. Staff does not believe the removal of
these stalls and the construction of the addition will hinder the vehicular traffic in anyway.
Likewise, the applicant currently has a sidewalk from the parking area to the main entrance. A
new sidewalk will be installed along a portion of the west side of the addition reconnecting the
parking areas to the main entrance. Again, staff believes the proposed addition will not have any
adverse effects on the pedestrian circulation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the amendment to the Special Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with the site plan and
elevations.
2. The parking agreements shall be recorded with the property prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3 All improvements be completed by August 1, 1999
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator, 924-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
32
RESOLUTION NO. ____
Amends Resolutions 6805; 6713; 6625; 6547; 6529; 6295
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6805 ADOPTED ON
APRIL 6, 1981, AND GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTINUED
SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14:8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,400 S.F. ADDITION AT 3401 LOUISIANA
AVENUE
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Philips Investment Co. (Philip Weber) has made application to the City
Council for an amendment to a continued special permit under Section 14:8-6 of the St. Louis
Park Ordinance Code to allow the addition of a 1,400 square foot game room at 3401 Louisiana
Avenue within a C-2, General Commercial District having the following legal description:
Lot 1, Block 6, Oak Park Village (Abstract)
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No.
98-26-CUP and the effect of the proposed game room addition on the health, safety, and welfare
of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect
on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, a special use permit was amended regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No.6805 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 6, 1981 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that special use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 6805 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 98-26-CUP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 6805 (Document not filed) is
hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a continued special
33
permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting the addition of a 1,400 square foot
game room within the C-2, General Commercial District at the location described above based
on the following conditions:
1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A - Site Plan;
Exhibit B - Topography Plan and Utility Plan; Exhibit C - Elevation Plan, except as
modified and as stamped received by the Planning Department on June 20, 1979 and
except as modified by Exhibit D - New Site Plan, which permits construction of the
southerly wall up to eleven feet off from the south property line and the northeasterly wall
for up to six feet off from the east property line and provided that said area between the
lot line and the building line be properly backfilled and compacted to guarantee against
settlement, be graded for proper drainage, and be landscaped with trees and grass and
maintained thereafter, and except that the basement shall be eliminated and comparable
square foot area added at the northeast corner of the structure as shown on Exhibit E -
New Site Plan No. 2; and Exhibit F, New Floor Plan; and further except that the sidewalk
on the east side of the parking lot south of the entrance area may be deleted.
2. That a chain link fence be allowed against the building and extending above the rooftop
along Oak Leaf Drive and 2nd Street Northwest.
3. That Exhibit A - Site Plan, with respect to the landscape items can be amended as follows:
a. Seven sunburst locust can be changed to seven seedless ash.
b. Nine mountain ash can be changed to seven skyline locust.
c. Four black hill spruce can be added—three at the north end of the building and one along
the southwest wall.
d. Planting of ivy along the northeasterly and southeasterly wall where the chain link fence
exists.
4. That all improvements, including development of the bowling alley and restaurant and
landscaping, paving, curbing, lighting and other items shown on the exhibits be
completed by June 15, 1981.
5. That the continued special permit shall be amended on August 17, 1998 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit G -
Site Plan and Exhibit H - Elevations; such documents incorporated by reference
herein.
b. The parking agreements shall be recorded with the property prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
34
c. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
d. All improvements be completed by August 1, 1999.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 17, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
98-26:RES12
35
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6d
Meeting of August 17, 1998
6d. Holy Family Fall Festival Application
The Holy Family Church will conduct its annual fall festival on September 11th,
12th, and 13th, 1998 and has applied for an exemption from the lawful gambling
license, a temporary 3.2 beer license, and a temporary parking restriction.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the temporary 3.2 beer license for September
11th, 12th, and 13th, 1997. Motion to adopt the resolution
allowing for a temporary parking restriction.
Background:
The Holy Family Fall Festival is an annual event sponsored by the Holy Family Church, at 5900
West Lake Street. The event includes a carnival, food and beer sales, bingo, pulltabs and a raffle.
Staff has administratively approved the plans for a tent, signage and a temporary noise permit.
Holy Family Church has also be applying for a carnival and temporary food license. A hold
harmless agreement for use of the adjacent sidewalks has been signed by the Church and the City
as has been done in the past.
A Public Hearing and Council approval is required for the temporary liquor license to sell 3.2
beer during the festival. The lawful gambling exemption for bingo, raffle and pulltabs has been
processed through the State Gambling Board. As per changes to the City Code in 1997 for
exemption from lawful gambling, the gambling application has already been approved through
administrative process. Holy Family Church has also requested a temporary parking restriction
along Lake Street during the festival.
Police Investigation
The principals were investigated and approved.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy Kaiser, Licensing/CSR, 924-2504
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
36
RESOLUTION NO. 98_______
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY PARKING
RESTRICTIONS ALONG LAKE STREET BETWEEN ZARTHAN AND
ALABAMA AVENUES DURING THE HOLY FAMILY FALL FESTIVAL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that a traffic analysis having been
completed, the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls:
To restrict parking along both sides of Lake Street between Zarthan and
Alabama Avenues on September 11th, 12th, and 13th, 1998
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 17, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #6e
Meeting of August 17, 1998
6e. Resolution for Gambling Premises Permit for O’Tooles Pub at 4608 Excelsior
Boulevard
St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association Gambling Premises license at 4608
Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close the public hearing. Motion to defer decision
on this item to meeting of September 3, 1998.
Background:
The St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association has submitted an application for a Gambling
Premises Permit at 4608 Excelsior Blvd. in St. Louis Park. The application is for a Class A
license which includes pulltabs. The Hockey Boosters holds a premises permit for Bunny’s
located at 4730 Excelsior Blvd which was approved by the Council on March 2, 1998.
The City Council must approve the license before it is submitted to the State Gambling Control
Board. A copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be submitted to the State.
Police Investigation:
The Police Department has reviewed the application. The principles have been investigated and
approved.
Recommended Action:
Section 1300-1606 of the City’s Ordinance Code requires notification to be sent by mail to
property owners located within 350 feet of the site where the lawful gambling is proposed. This
provision has not yet been met.
Staff is requesting that Council close the public hearing and defer action to the meeting of
September 3rd with the intent of hearing any member of the public who wishes to speak to this
item at that time.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy Kaiser, Licensing/CSR, 924-2504
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
38
RESOLUTION NO.______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL
GAMBLING FOR THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY
BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-
1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved
ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION AT
O’TOOLES PUB AT 4608 EXCELSIOR BLVD., ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
Attest: Adopted by the City Council _______, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
39
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7a
Meeting of August 17, 1998
7a. Variance Appeal, 5911 Oxford Street
Case No. 5-98-VAR
James and Audry Burt are requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals’
decision denying the original variance requests to permit a total floor area for all
accessory buildings of 1,870 sq. ft. instead of the maximum 800 sq. ft., a side yard
setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet and a rear yard setback of 1 foot
instead of the required 2 feet.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Council defer the variance
request and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
which would permit the reconstruction of damaged or destroyed
non-conforming accessory structures
Background:
On July 23, 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request to permit a total floor
area for all accessory buildings of 1,870 sq. ft. instead of the maximum 800 sq. ft., a side yard
setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet and a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the
required 2 feet for property located in the “R-3” Two Family District at 5911 Oxford Street. The
applicant has appealed the decision to the City Council.
The staff report concluded that five out of the seven criteria for granting a variance were not
satisfied. Based on that conclusion, it was recommended that the request to permit a total floor
area for all accessory buildings of 1,870 sq. ft. instead of the maximum 800 sq. ft., a side yard
setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet and a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the
required 2 feet be denied. The Board of Zoning Appeals concurred with the staff report and the
motion to deny the request passed on a 3-0 vote.
The property is currently being used for a twelve (12) unit apartment building. The site has an
existing four stall garage (880 sq. ft.) along its’ east property line. Prior to August 3, 1997
another four stall garage (968 sq. ft.) existed on the along the site’s west property line. A fire
damaged the 968 sq. ft. garage beyond repair and was demolished near the end of August. The
applicant wishes to replace the garage which burned and needed the variance to construct it.
40
Alternatives:
Staff has identified the following alternatives for the City Council.
1. The City Council may uphold the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the
Council chooses this option, they should move to deny the variance request and uphold
the Board of Zoning Appeals’ Resolution of Findings denying the variance.
2. The City Council may grant a variance to permit a total floor area for all accessory
buildings of 1,870 sq. ft. instead of the maximum 800 sq. ft., a side yard setback of 1.5
feet instead of the required 2 feet and a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the required
2 feet. If the Council chooses this option, they should direct staff to prepare of
Resolution of Approval with findings to present at the November 3, 1997 City Council
meeting.
3. The City Council may defer the variance request and direct staff to prepare an ordinance
amendment which would permit the reconstruction of damaged or destroyed non-
conforming accessory structures.
Attachments:
Staff Report
Adopted Resolution
Excerpts from BOZA Meeting
Prepared by: Scott Moore, Zoning Administrator, 925-2592
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
41
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
City of St. Louis Park
July 23, 1998
CASE NO. 5-98 VAR
MULTIPLE VARIANCES TO
PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL
ACCESSORY BUILDING
SUBJECT
Request of James and Audry Burt for variances from Sections 14:5-4.2(A)(7)(e) and 14:5-
4.2(A)(7)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a total floor area of all accessory buildings of
1,870 square feet instead of the maximum 800 square feet, to permit a side yard setback of 1.5
feet instead of the required 2 feet, and to permit a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the
required 2 feet for property located in the “R-3” Two Family District at 5911 Oxford Street.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking to place an additional four car garage in the rear yard. The applicant
previously had two, four car garages on the site. However, a fire destroyed the garage located
along the western property line. The proposed second garage will have the exterior dimensions
of 22 x 44, or 968 sq. ft. The existing garage has an area of 880 square feet. The ordinance
states that accessory buildings cannot have a total floor area in excess of 800 square feet. As
well, the minimum setbacks along the side and rear property lines are required to be 2 feet
thereby requiring the variances.
SITE DATA
Zoning R-3, Two Family Residence
Owner James and Audry Burt
Lot Width 110 feet
Lot Depth 157 feet
Lot Area 17,270 sq. feet
Land Use 12 Unit Apartment (n/c)
42
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There currently is an existing four car garage on the parcel. The applicant is seeking to construct
an additional four car garage on the site to replace one that was destroyed by fire. The land is
currently being used as a twelve unit apartment building and has frontage along Oxford Street.
The majority of the surrounding properties are single family homes with a couple of duplexes
and a small business.
BACKGROUND
On September 25, 1997 the Board of Zoning Appeals heard the same variance requests from the
applicant. The staff report recommended the variances be denied. The BOZA concurred with
staff and denied all three requests on a vote of 3-0. The applicant appealed this decision to the
City Council. The Council heard the appeal request at their October 20, 1997 meeting. After
testimony was received, the Council upheld the decision of the Board.
ANALYSIS
Section 14:8-3.3 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant
variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose
conditions and safeguards provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said
lot is located.
The applicant states the four stall garage they are asking for is necessary since the use on the
property is a 12 unit apartment building. They feel the garage is required to provide an adequate
number of parking spaces for the use. Since they are not asking for anything larger or closer to
the property line, they believe the variance should be granted.
The land use on the property is non-conforming. As well, the size of the remaining garage is
non-conforming. Adding another garage would be intensifying an existing non-conformity. The
non-conforming section of the ordinance states that in the event a non-conforming structure is
damaged or destroyed, it must be removed or made to conform with the ordinance. The burnt
garage has been removed. The ordinance does not state that the number of stalls required by the
ordinance be within a garage. These stalls can be
striped on a legally paved area. As well, if the garage were to be built, staff sees no hardship
based on the land which prohibits the owner from legally developing the land. The garage could
easily be built and meet the required setbacks. Staff believes that this criterion has not been
satisfied.
43
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other
land or structures in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant believes that since this was once an existing condition, they cannot see why a
variance should not be granted for a garage to be the same size in the same location.
Staff does not believe that since this was once an existing condition, that a new garage should be
built the exact same size in the exact same location. The Zoning Ordinance has a specific section
that deals with non-conformities and non-conforming structures. The purpose is to try and
remove all the non-conformities in the city. Granting the three variance requests would be
contrary to what that section of the ordinance is trying to accomplish. Since there are no unique
conditions applying to any of the requests, staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states it is necessary to have the garage built in approximately the same place for
the looks of the building.
Staff does not believe a property right would be lost of the variance requests were denied. The
additional parking can still be provided where the garage use to be located and probably even be
able to provide five spaces instead of four. Staff merely sees these requests as a convenience to
the land owner and therefore, staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
Staff would agree with the applicant that the proposed garage will not impair an adequate supply
of the light and air to the surrounding properties. Nor will it endanger the public in anyway.
Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area or in any other way impair the health,
safety, comfort, or morals of the area.
Staff does not believe the proposed garage will have an unreasonable impact on the
neighborhood. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
44
The applicant does not believe that having a garage the same size in the same location would be
contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant feels the proposed garage is
necessary in order to satisfy other requirements of the ordinance. It will provide adequate space
for the applicant’s vehicles and other personal belongings.
Staff believes that the proposed four car garage will be contrary to the ordinance since they
already have removed a non-conformity. That is why the non-conforming section of the Zoning
Ordinance exists. As mentioned above, the applicant does not have to provide the required
number of parking spaces within an enclosed building. They can be striped on the paved area
that already exists. Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant believes that with all the things listed above, they has demonstrated that the
proposed four car garage is necessary and not a convenience. The proposal will provide for
additional parking space. The applicant also believes that since a similar garage existed, they are
not increasing or intensifying a non-conformity.
Staff believes the proposed four car garage will only be a convenience to the applicant. Staff has
indicated that the parking can be provided on the site by striping the paved area where the garage
use to be. This will probably increase the number of stalls from four to five. Staff cannot see
any hardship for granting the variance. As well, if a garage were to be built, there is no hardship
for granting the variances to reduce the side and rear yard setbacks. Staff believes this criterion
has not been satisfied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Inasmuch as staff believes that five out the seven criteria have not been satisfied, it is
recommended that the request to permit a total floor area of all accessory buildings of 1,870
square feet instead of the maximum 800 square feet, to permit a side yard setback of 1.5 feet
instead of the required 2 feet, and to permit a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the required 2
feet be denied.
45
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION JAMES AND
AUDRY BURT FOR VARIANCES UNDER SECTIONS 14:5-4.2(A)(7)(e) AND 14:5-
4.2(A)(7)(d) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
TO PERMIT A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OF 1,870
SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM 800 SQUARE FEET, A SIDE YARD
SETBACK OF 1. 5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 2 FEET AND A REAR YARD
SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 2 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE “R-3” TWO FAMILY DISTRICT, AT 5911 OXFORD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
FINDINGS
1. On June 23, 1998 James and Audry Burt filed an application seeking a variance to permit
a total floor area of all accessory building of 1,870 instead of the maximum 800 square
feet, a side yard setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet, and a rear yard setback
of 1 foot instead of the required 2 feet for property located in the “R-3” Two Family
District, at 5911 Oxford Street for the following legal description, to wit:
Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22, Block 59, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park
2. On July 23, 1998, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution of denial.
3. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning
Appeals makes the following findings:
a. The requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 14:8-3.3(E) of
the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant
variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions
on the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use in the
past.
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit fewer parking stalls that what is
required.
46
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardship under the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the
requested variance do not exist.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 5-98 VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
The applicant’s request for a variance to permit a total floor area of all accessory building of
1,870 instead of the maximum 800 square feet, a side yard setback of 1.5 feet instead of the
required 2 feet, and a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the required 2 feet is hereby denied
based on the findings set forth above.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals; July 23, 1998
_____________________________
Paul Roberts, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________
Scott Moore
Zoning Administrator
file: deny
47
EXCERPTS
Board of Zoning Appeals
July 23, 1998
Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 5-98 VAR -- Request of James and Audry Burt for variances from
Section 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(e) and 14:5-4.1(A)(7)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance to
permit 1,870 square feet of accessory buildings instead of the maximum 800
square feet, to permit a side yard setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet,
and to permit a rear yard setback of 1 foot instead of the required 2 feet for
property located in an “R-3” Two Family District at 5911 Oxford Street.
Ms. Jeremiah presented the staff report and concluded that five out of the seven criteria
have not been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit a total floor area of
all accessory buildings of 1,870 square feet instead of the maximum 800 square feet, to
permit a side yard setback of 1.5 feet instead of the required 2 feet, and to permit a rear
yard setback of 1 foot instead of the required 2 feet be denied.
Mr. Reel asked what variances currently exist on the property.
Ms. Jeremiah stated there are no existing variances on the property however there are a
number of non-conformities that currently exist.
Mr. Gainsley asked if there is anything that has changed.
Ms. Jeremiah stated no.
Mr. Reel asked if the request to build on the location and the size based on the existing
foundation and does the foundation meet current building codes.
Ms. Jeremiah stated she is not aware if the existing foundation is still in place.
Chair Roberts stated from the time the request for variance was made last year nothing
changed.
James Burt, applicant, asked for an example as to what would have changed.
Chair Roberts stated the request for variance was turned down by the Board of Zoning
Appeals and by the City Council and was wondering why they reapplied.
Mr. Burt stated a winter went by without a garage, that was a big change and felt there
isn’t anyone in the room who would prefer to have cars out all winter. The tenants rented
apartments with the agreement there is a garage available.
48
Mr. Burt stated there was a vacancy for four months and pointed out that there had not
been a vacancy for over one week in the last twenty-one years. The vacancy existed
because the people who wanted the apartment had a nice car and wanted a garage. There
are two four garages and twelve apartments.
Wade Shatzer, 3761 Alabama Avenue, stated everyone in the immediate neighborhood is
concerned. Apartment buildings can spiral upwards or downwards and a lot of it depends
on who owns the property but the other part depends on what it has to offer and a garage
will determine the type of tenants one has moving into their property. By not issuing the
variance, the property is being handicapped. Garages are a definite factor in the property
rental business and determine the quality of people moving in. Another concern is the
esthetics. One didn’t notice an apartment complex when the garages were there. That is
what one wants to achieve when there is a non-conforming use.
Mr. Audry Burt stated the people surrounding the property have expressed their concern
over the last year since the fire.
Dana Braun, 5919 Oxford Street, stated having a duplex and renting it out, one of the
first questions asked is, “Do you have a garage?”. It is very important in Minnesota.
Tim Berrett stated it is understood how the ordinances work with construction however
there was an existing structure that was burned to the ground. If the neighbors want to
build another garage then let them build it because sometime the garages slow cars down
from roaring through the alley. Having four children that play close to the alley the
concern is that cars coming around make a faster turn when the area is wide open. Senior
citizens also us the alley quite often and it is definitely a safety factor and emphatically
urge the Board to change their decision because it would improve the apartment and
would make it better for the neighborhood.
John Basill, 6208 Oxford Street, President of the Elmwood Neighborhood Association
stated this issue has come up at the last two meetings. With forty five people in
attendance at the last meeting, no one voiced any objection to getting this garage built. A
plea was made to the Board to listen to the neighbors. The people know what is good in
their own neighborhood and know what will fit and will not object to the construction of
a garage. The neighborhood is unified in that everyone wants the garage and it is
important that the Board listen to that. Regarding the seven criteria, it is felt it does meet
the seven criteria. It is also felt the Board has the authority to grant the variance if
practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary. This has been used in this way
since 1964 and that is customary. If the main structure would have burnt it may have
been suggested to build a single family dwelling and put in a double car garage. The
main structure didn’t burn, clearly the Board has the authority to approve this. On behalf
of the neighborhood it is felt the variance should be granted. It is best for the tenants, it’s
49
best for the neighbors and the neighborhood and even more important, it is best for the
community. It is hoped the decision is made to approve the variance.
Bob Tift, 3800 Brunswick Avenue stated the loss of the garage changed the whole image
of the alley and the area behind the apartment complex. The bottom line is that it is a
common sense issue. The slab is sitting there and the garage serves more of a purpose
than just a parking space. The neighborhood fully supports the construction of a garage
on the existing slab.
Chair Roberts closed the public hearing.
Mr. Reel stated after looking at the property came to the conclusion that there is
something unique about this site in that it is non-conforming. Even though the garage in
question is non-conforming, that’s secondary. The non-conformance is the main structure
and by denying a garage, the property isn’t moving to conforming. It is not contrary to
the comprehensive plan. It is a vital site and agree that it is a common sense issue to be a
foot away from the property line.
Ms. Bloyer stated the variance request had been denied before and does not know what is
so unique about that particular piece of land. The Board still has to live by the seven
criteria and if an exception to these criteria cannot be found then a variance cannot be
granted. What the Board does have precedential value and could very well have a case
granted of someone with identical conditions.
Mr. Reel stated the overriding concern is the esthetics. There are numerous ways of
taking care of the esthetics of the property and as far as a garage being a necessity for the
property values, it is known that property values have increased without the use of
garages over the past four or five years. A garage is more of a convenience for the
renters however there is concern about the people who are current renters who were
entered into agreement with a garage now do not have it.
Mr. Gainsley stated there haven’t been any changes since the original request was made.
The building has two main stumbling blocks. It’s a non-conforming use and what the
applicant wants to do is outside the ordinance. Where the staff reports states “the staff
sees no hardship based on the land” is the major thing the Board of Zoning Appeals goes
by. If there is something wrong with the land, that constitutes a hardship that prevents
from getting a reasonable use of the property as the neighbors do. That is a reason for a
variance. The hardship is not the issue. It’s the hardship cause by the land, it’s
something wrong with the property and the building has the other problem in that it’s a
non-conforming use. Non-conforming uses were considered very carefully by the
Planning Commission when the Zoning Ordinance was written. That issue has been
considered very thoroughly. The arguments that were made are good arguments but they
aren’t persuasive in terms of how the ordinance is written.
50
Mr. Gainsley moved to accept the staff report and deny the variance. Ms. Bloyer
seconded the motion.
Mr. Burt stated when asked what is unique to this piece of land, it is unique, it has an
apartment building on it and certainly that makes it a unique structure. Topography is not
being talked about when you look at land. Land is structure, property and land, and
again, this is a very unique piece of property. Leave the apartment building on the site
and this is truly a unique piece of property. Change has to be considered. If people stuck
to the rules nothing would change. We have to look outside the box. The Board has the
authority to do it and can look at the request and say no because by the rigid definition
this does not work and common sense guidelines can be applied to it and say what is the
right thing to do for the community as a whole.
Mr. Robertson stated it is somewhat of a common sense issue and in something that has
such support, it should be the Board’s charge to look and see, not going against anything
that is set in stone, as far as interpretation it is not quite so clear cut. The Board does
have the ability to look at it and within the Board’s own comfort level look at a way to
interpret the situation as being unique. Referring to item No. 6, does it go against the
Comprehensive Plan, does it do anything positive to the community by denying this
variance. If the main structure had burned down then it would not be an issue at all
because it could be denied and something could be built that would be within the zoning
but to simply deny a garage on this lot does not move this site into compliance and it does
create economic hardship for the owners because it cannot be rented as easily or for as
much. It’s not much of a stretch to say a Minnesota winter has potential hardship
involved in it and to not have a garage for a $40,000 vehicle is a hardship therefore it is
reasonable to feel that the Board is not stepping outside the boundaries in approving the
variance.
Chair Roberts asked if one was to look at this and state a reason for giving the variance
based on the seven criteria, how would that be done.
Mr. Robertson stated number 1, something unique to the lot, there is a 12 unit apartment
building on it, a non-complying use that is not going away.
Chair Roberts stated that is unique to the land.
Mr. Burt stated that is a permanent structure in the ground. It is unique to the land by
definition. If it was a mobile home on wheels, it’s not unique to that situation. It is a
permanent structure and thus is considered part of the land and part of the lot.
Mr. Reel stated the lot is actually a parcel of land. Buildings and structures are not
addressed in the definitions for St. Louis Park. It is strictly the parcel of land.
Mr. Burt asked the Board to find ways to make it work. It is the right thing for the
community. This apartment building is dead center in a neighborhood and appreciates
51
the letter of the law but also appreciates the fact that he is a resident of the neighborhood
and the Board is here for the good of the people and the people are speaking loudly and
clearly on the issues. By putting the garage on there isn’t any endangerment to the
neighborhood,
the zoning laws are there for strict protection of society as a whole, in this case something
that was already there is being taken away.
Mr. Gainsley stated the issues being made are of interest to the neighbors however under
rules and the policies under which the Board of Zoning Appeals operates, most of what is
being said is not relevant to what is considered. The place to make those arguments is in
front of the City Council who can make changes in the law and do a lot of things that the
Board cannot do. Most of the issues are things that can only be acted on by the City
Council in terms of granting a variance. The hardship has to be with the property in order
to give a variance. There is also a non-conformity involved. It has to be a hardship on
the land that prevents the applicant from doing what the neighbors have done.
Mr. Burt stated the Board has the authority to approve the request for variance. Clearly
the Board would be justified to approve the request. It is just a matter of the Board
wanting to approve it or pass it along. Obviously, from the applicant’s and
neighborhood’s perspective, there is a huge possibility, when one talks about undue
hardship, that this garage will not be built before the winter. There are many factors that
are reliant on the decision however by passing it on to the City Council, it will hurt the
property owner, the tenants, the neighborhood and it will be another winter of parking
outside.
Chair Roberts stated history has proven that City Council overrides the Board of Zoning
Appeals just about 90% of the time. The Board has the authority to grant variances. The
Board also has a responsibility to the rest of the City to make sure that it is done in a way
that meshes well with the ordinance as it is set up. The ordinances set it up as a non-
conforming use right now. There is nothing that the Board did, or the Burts did, it is
nothing the City as a whole did, it’s that this particular area is to be zoned differently than
it is now. The word from the Planning Department is that intensifying a non-conforming
use is something the Board should not be doing unless there is extreme undue hardship to
do that. What is done as a judicial body, not a legislative body, is interpret the facts as
seen, apply them to the ordinances and make a decision based on that. The City Council
is a legislative type of body. Their scope of control and abilities is much wider than the
Boards. The Board makes the decisions based on study sessions with the City attorneys
who educate the Board as to how to interpret the ordinances and how to define
varianceable items as they come before the Board. Taken into consideration the training,
the ordinances and the input from the applicants and the rest of the neighbors around the
City in making the decision.
Mr. Burt stated it would be too bad if this went to Council and it is delayed and then it
gets approved. It is uncertain whether Council will approve the request or not but if
Council approves it, hardship will be put on people for another winter because its
52
delayed. The decision should be made tonight and move ahead. Under the judicial
interpretation the Board has complete authority to approve the request. It is just a matter
of which ones you want to apply to each criteria. Clearly, under the judicial reading the
Board could say the seven criteria are all OK and it can move ahead. That will get a
garage up before winter, would get the issue behind and not be dragged out by taking it
to the City Council to delay the construction schedule.
Chair Roberts stated there is a motion by Mr. Gainsley. The Board moved to accept the
staff report and deny the variance and the motion passed on a vote of 4-1 with Roberts,
Bloyer, Gainsley, Robertson voting in favor, Reel against.
Chair Roberts stated the applicant has 10 days to appeal the decision to the City Council.
A written request must be received by staff asking for an appeal of the Board’s decision
to the City Council and along with that a set of mailing labels for all the property owners
within 350 feet of the lot in question.
53
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8a
Meeting of August 17, 1998
8a. Possession of Knives or Edged Weapons in School Zones Ordinance
A proposal amending Chapter 12 of the St. Louis Park City Code concerning the
possession of dangerous edged weapons on school property.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to waive first reading of ordinance without the Exempt
Persons clause and set second reading for September 8, 1998
Background:
Under current state law, it is a felony level offense to possess a dangerous weapon on school
grounds. The Hennepin County Attorneys Office has made a policy decision to only prosecute
knife cases involving a blade length of four inches or more. During the past two years, fourteen
cases have been declined by the Hennepin County Attorneys Office because they involved knives
with blade lengths of less than four inches.
At the study session on March 23, 1998, the Council discussed the original draft ordinance
proposal. Councilmembers requested an ordinance alternative which included an exemption for
adults and community education attendees. This alternative ordinance proposal was discussed at
the July 27th study session.
This ordinance will provide the police department, the city prosecutor, The Hennepin County
Attorney’s Office, and school officials with the additional tool of misdemeanor prosecution
where appropriate. While each case will continue to be evaluated on its own merits, this
ordinance will capture cases similar to the fourteen cases which have been lost during the past
two years.
This ordinance proposal, without the Exempt Persons clause, adapts Minnesota Statute 609.66
Subd. 1d (felony) to misdemeanor uses.
Attachments:
• Possession of Knives or Weapons in School Zone Ordinance (with exempt persons clause
highlighted)
• St. Louis Park City Ordinance 12-1202 Dangerous Weapons
• Minnesota State Statute 609.66 Dangerous Weapons
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
54
ORDINANCE NO.______
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING
THE POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 12 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to include a new
Section 12-1202.100 as follows:
Section 12-1202.100. Possession of Knives or Weapons in School Zones.
A. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this
Ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein defined:
"Edged weapon" shall mean:
1. Any knife, regardless of size or the intended use;
2. Broken glass; or
3. Sharp plastics or sharp metal objects, including tools, capable of injuring a
person.
"School zone" shall mean:
1. Any property owned, leased, or controlled by a school district or an
organization operating a nonpublic school, as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 123.932, subd. 3, where an elementary, middle,
secondary school, secondary vocational center or other school providing
educational services in grade one through grade 12 is located, or used for
educational purposes, or where extracurricular or cocurricular activities are
regularly provided; and
2. The area within a school bus when the bus is being used to transport one
or more elementary or secondary school students.
55
B. Possession of Knives or Weapons in School Zones Prohibited.
1. General Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person to be in
possession of, manufacture, carry, transport or control any edged weapon
in any school zone.
2. Exempt Persons. Persons 21 years of age and older are exempt from §12-
1202.100, B.(1) when attending post-secondary, adult or continuing or
community education classes, programs or activities in a school zone.
C. Exceptions. Edged weapons shall be permitted when used in or as a part of any
law enforcement or instructional activity carried on in a school zone, used in the
preparation or consumption of food in any lunchroom, cafeteria, snack bar, or
other place where food is customarily prepared or served, or when used as a tool
by a person authorized to perform construction, repair or maintenance services in
a school zone.
SECTION 2. Penalty. A violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor, punishable by 90
days in jail and/or a $700.00 fine.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its passage and
publication.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council _______, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Manager City Attorney
56
Excerpt from City of St. Louis Park Municipal Code:
Part 12 - Offenses Against Public Peace and Safety
Section 12-1202. Dangerous Weapons. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a
misdemeanor:
1. Is not a law enforcement officer and wears under his clothes or otherwise conceals
about his person any dangerous weapon.
2. Recklessly handles or uses a gun or other dangerous weapon or explosive so as to
endanger the safety of another; or
3. Intentionally points a gun of any kind, capable of injuring or killing a human being
and whether loaded or unloaded, at or toward another; or
4. Manufactures or sells for any unlawful purpose any weapon known as a slung-shot or
sand club; or
5. Manufactures, transfers, or possess metal knuckles or a switch blade knife opening
automatically; or
6. Possesses any other dangerous article or substance for the purpose of being used
unlawfully as a weapon against another; or
7. Sells or has in his possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge
of a firearm; or
8. Without the parent’s or guardian’s consent, furnishes a child under 14 years of age, or
as a parent or guardian permits such child to handle or use, outside of the parent’s or
guardian’s presence, a firearm or airgun of any kind, or any ammunition or
explosives; or
9. Furnishes a minor under 18 years of age with a firearm, airgun, ammunition, or
explosive without the written consent of his parent or guardian or of the police
department or of a magistrate.
“Dangerous Weapon” means nay firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device
designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, or any other
device or instrumentally which, in the manner it is user or intended to be used, is
calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
(Sec. 12-1202 Amended by Ordinance 1284, March 17, 1975)
57
Excerpt from Minnesota State Statute:
Chapter Title: CRIMINAL CODE
Section: 609.66 Dangerous weapons.
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes. (a) Whoever does any of the
following is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):
(1) recklessly handles or uses a gun or other dangerous weapon or explosive so as to
endanger the safety of another; or
(2) intentionally points a gun of any kind, capable of injuring or killing a human being and
whether loaded or unloaded, at or toward another; or
(3) manufactures or sells for any unlawful purpose any weapon known as a slingshot or sand
club; or
(4) manufactures, transfers, or possesses metal knuckles or a switch blade knife opening
automatically; or
(5) possesses any other dangerous article or substance for the purpose of being used
unlawfully as a weapon against another; or
(6) outside of a municipality and without the parent’s or guardian’s consent, furnishes a
child under 14 years of age, or as a parent or guardian permits the child to handle or use,
outside of the parent’s or guardian’s presence, a firearm or airgun of any kind, or any
ammunition or explosive.
Possession of written evidence of prior consent signed by the minor’s parent or guardian is a
complete defense to a charge under clause (6).
(b) A person convicted under paragraph (a) may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the act was committed in a public housing zone, as defined in section 152.01,
subdivision 19, a school zone, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision 14a, or a park
zone, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision 12a, to imprisonment for not more than
one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; or
(2) otherwise, including where the act was committed on residential premises within a zone
described in clause (1) if the offender was at the time an owner, tenant, or invitee for a
lawful purpose with respect to those residential premises, to imprisonment for not more
than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $700, or both.
Subd. 1a. Felony crimes; silencers prohibited; reckless discharge. (a) Whoever does any of the
following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b):
(1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a
firearm;
(2) intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of
another; or
(3) recklessly discharges a firearm within a municipality. (b) A person convicted under
paragraph (a) may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the act was a violation of paragraph (a), clause (2), or if the act was a violation of
paragraph (a), clause (1) or (3), and was committed in a public housing zone, as
58
defined in section 152.01, subdivision 19, a school zone, as defined in section
152.01, subdivision 14a, or a park zone, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision
12a, to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more
than $10,000, or both; or
(2) otherwise, to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not
more than $5,000, or both.
Subd. 1b. Felony; furnishing to minors. Whoever, in any municipality of this state, furnishes a
minor under 18 years of age with a firearm, airgun, ammunition, or explosive without the prior
consent of the minor’s parent or guardian or of the police department of the municipality is
guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both. Possession of written evidence of prior
consent signed by the minor’s parent or guardian is a complete defense to a charge under this
subdivision.
Subd. 1c. Felony; furnishing a dangerous weapon. Whoever recklessly furnishes a person with a
dangerous weapon in conscious disregard of a known substantial risk that the object
will be possessed or used in furtherance of a felony crime of violence is guilty of a felony and
may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not
more than $20,000, or both.
Subd. 1d. Felony; possession on school property. (a) Whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a
dangerous weapon or uses or brandishes a replica firearm or a BB gun on school property is
guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(b) Whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a replica firearm or a BB gun on school property is
guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(c) As used in this subdivision:
(1) “BB gun” means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less
in diameter;
(2) “dangerous weapon” has the meaning given it in section 609.02, subdivision 6;
(3) “replica firearm” has the meaning given it in section 609.713; and
(4) “school property” means:
(i) a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its
grounds, whether leased or owned by the school; and
(ii) the area within a school bus when that bus is being used to transport one or more
elementary, middle, or secondary school students.
(d) This subdivision does not apply to:
(1) licensed peace officers, military personnel, or students participating in military
training, who are performing official duties;
(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit;
(3) persons who keep or store in a motor vehicle pistols in accordance with sections
624.714 and 624.715 or other firearms in accordance with section 97B.045;
(4) firearm safety or marksmanship courses or activities conducted on school property;
(5) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms by a ceremonial color
guard;
59
(6) a gun or knife show held on school property; or
(7) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written
permission of the principal.
Subd. 1e. Felony; drive-by shooting. (a) Whoever, while in or having just exited from a motor
vehicle, recklessly discharges a firearm at or toward a person, another motor vehicle, or a
building is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three
years or to payment of a fine of not more than $6,000, or both. If the vehicle or building is
occupied, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 609.52,
subdivision 1, and “building” has the meaning given in section 609.581, subdivision 2.
Subd. 1f. Gross misdemeanor; transferring a firearm without background check. A person, other
than a federally licensed firearms dealer, who transfers a pistol or semiautomatic military-style
assault weapon to another without complying with the transfer requirements of section
624.7132, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within
one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, and if:
(1) the transferee was prohibited from possessing the weapon under section 624.713 at the
time of the transfer; or
(2) it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the transfer that the transferee was likely to
use or possess the weapon in furtherance of a felony crime of violence.
Subd. 1g. Felony; possession in courthouse or certain state buildings. (a) A person who commits
either of the following acts is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to
imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or
both:
(1) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives within any courthouse
complex; or
(2) possesses a dangerous weapon, ammunition, or explosives in any state building within
the capitol area described in section 15.50, other than the National Guard Armory.
(b) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited or restricted by other law to possess a dangerous
weapon, this subdivision does not apply to:
(1) licensed peace officers or military personnel who are performing official duties;
(2) persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section
624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as
appropriate;
(3) persons who possess dangerous weapons for the purpose of display as demonstrative
evidence during testimony at a trial or hearing or exhibition in compliance with advance
notice and safety guidelines set by the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety; or
(4) persons who possess dangerous weapons in a courthouse complex with the express
consent of the county sheriff or who possess dangerous weapons in a state building with
the express consent of the commissioner of public safety.
60
Subd. 2. Exceptions. Nothing in this section prohibits the possession of the articles mentioned
by museums or collectors of art or for other lawful purposes of public exhibition.
Item 9a*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 1998 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Ken
Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah, Janice Loftus
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Morris introduced Jerry Timian who will serve as a new Planning Commissioner
representing the School Board. Julie DiGravina will serve as alternate.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 1, 1998
Mr. Carver moved approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1998. Ms.
Velick seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-2 with Garelick,
Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor and Bissonnette Timian abstaining.
3. Public Hearings - None
4. Old Business
A. Case No. 98-18-S -- Request of McCullough Companies for preliminary plat
approval for Aquila Place. (tabled 7-1-98)
Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, gave a staff report indicating that the City was not
subject to any liability with regard to the impacts of Aquila Park on the proposed single
family residential subdivision and recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject
to the conditions that staff included in the July 1st staff report.
Ms. Velick asked staff to review issues of concern.
61
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the main concerns are if the lighting and noise in Aquila Park
would create any nuisance problems for future home owners in that area; if the City is
meeting its ordinance requirements; and if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is
approved, will the new design plans and park improvements for the area be examined for
conformance with our ordinances. She indicated that the City Attorney did not have any
concerns with this development nor did he feel it was necessary to do any formal
notification to future homeowners regarding the existence of the park lighting in addition
to the obvious general awareness of the park setting.
Mr. Carver asked for clarification of the buffering requirement referred to in the City
Attorney’s letter.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that single family and 2 family properties are clearly exempt from
any buffering requirements from the park. She stated that the park may have buffering
requirements and when the park is redesigned, staff would ensure all requirements were
met.
Mr. Carver stated he is concerned that the City would be required to provide additional
buffering based on the development of single family homes.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that buffering is based on zoning and, since the area is zoned
residential, the City’s buffering requirements should have already been met.
Dana Anemer, 8918 Minnehaha Circle, stated that the trees that are there now would need
to be replaced.
Marlys Ballweber, 3235 Aquila Lane, asked why the City had not developed homes in the
area in the past.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the railroad owned this property in the 1950’s and a change in
use and ownership is the reason for the homes being proposed now.
Chair Morris indicated that as regular land is not available, the undesirable land is being
used for development.
Ms. Velick asked if this is a trend throughout the country.
Chair Morris stated that he did not have information about the entire country, but it seems
to be a trend in both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park.
Mr. Garelick indicated that he recently walked through the area with Mrs. Oleisky,
President of the Aquila Regional Trail Association. He believes the residents are
requesting more information about possible funds available to purchase the land. He said
the residents are not against the trail, nor opposed to the houses, but rather that trees are
62
being destroyed with the development. Mr. Garelick read the following from the Parks
and Open Space; short and long term improvements:
In 1998 the Parks and Recreation Commission developed a priority of its
recommended park improvements for the next 10 years. The improvement items
were grouped into three different categories for use: heavy, moderate and light
with three different levels of urgency (mandated program needs, aesthetics or
desire to create possible combinations). Improvements were assigned to two time
periods, 0-5 years and 6-10 years. Most projects in the 5-10 year range consisted
of heavy to moderate use projects needing replacement of equipment or upgrade
stemming from safety issues or ADA mandated issues. Necessary improvements
were to cost $2.7 million in 0-5 year range and $1.3 million in the 5-10 year
range. Adequate funds do not currently exist in the Park Improvement Fund to
make these improvements. Changes have been made to the City’s subdivision
ordinance which require park dedication fees, but these will be too little and too
late to meet current needs.
Mr. Garelick pointed out if it was even possible to consider buying any additional park
area next to a park when there are no funds at this point to maintain current parks. He
questioned if it is feasible to purchase the land. He felt that the perception on the trade of
land for money was a shadow over the City and the question of trees for trade of houses
was another problem.
Ms. Jeremiah explained the history of the Hutchinson Spur and indicated that the City
considered purchase of the whole corridor, but negotiated a purchase of a portion of the
property for a lesser price. The rationale for allowing this portion of the corridor to be
eliminated from the purchase was that options existed for moving the trail, without
utilizing this property to any great extent, with the exception of an easement north of 31st
Street so that the trail wouldn’t have to encroach on the school district property. Another
reason for moving the trail onto Aquila Park property versus on the east side of the single
family lots is that there would be a loss of fewer trees.
Mr. Garelick asked if the City had control of the number of trees on a privately owned
property.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance and as part of the
platting process, the developer provided a tree replacement plan and she briefly reviewed
the development.
Gregg Frank, representing McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., clarified that 12-13%
of the trees are going to be lost as a result of this development, but additional trees are
going to be planted per ordinance requirements. He stated that it should be recognized
that trees add value to individual lots.
63
Mr. Gothberg moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the 11 conditions in the
original staff report of July 1st. Ms. Bissonnette seconded the motion and the motion
passed 5-0-2 with Bissonnette, Carver. Gothberg, Morris and Velick voting in favor and
Garelick and Timian abstaining.
Mr. Garelick indicated that he abstained because he felt that the citizens and the City have
been put in a box that they can’t get out of because of what had happened in the past. He
is concerned about the loss of trees.
Chair Morris stated that the Comprehensive Plan alignment for the trail would go before
the City Council on July 20th and perhaps some of the questions raised can be answered
at that time.
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda: None
B. Other New Business:
I. Comprehensive Plan Chapters (Discussion Only - No Action Required)
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report, reviewed the purpose and content of
proposed Comprehensive Plan chapters, and asked for comments from Planning
Commissioners.
Sewers and Solid Waste Chapter
Sanitary Sewer System
Mr. Garelick questioned why two known residents didn’t have sewer. Discussed
the locations of old landfill sites including the Park Nicollet site (i.e. Bass
Lake/Wolfe Park). A map is included in the current Comp Plan and new language
has been added to the Environmental Chapter.
Solid Waste
The Commission felt that promotion of conservation of solid waste was lacking
and would like to obtain statistics from other comparable Cities in the
Minneapolis area (i.e. Minnetonka, Edina) to compare and target reason for
increase in level of solid waste. The Planning Commission felt the figures were
important to set incentives.
Parks and Open Space Chapter
Discussed the importance and cost of park improvements and maintenance. Since
maintenance is costly, the use of volunteers was recommended (youth,
64
neighborhood garden clubs, action from new High School graduation requirement
of public service) to take responsibility for improving and maintaining parks.
Suggested a slogan “Beautify our Park”
Page F12 - “many” wildlife species should read “some”.
Discussed the suggestion that parks in St. Louis Park could be made more dog
friendly, perhaps increase the dog license fee to cover a park area for dogs. They
indicated that people meet each other when out walking their dogs, and dogs
provide a sense of safety for many residents. A Minneapolis Task force is
currently examining how to create pet friendly parks, “brown areas”.
Mr. Garelick indicated that there is a need for identification signs for parks and
neighborhoods.
The goals need to be reviewed and prioritized by Park and Recreation
Commission.
Page F-18 , Second Priority -- the need to obtain a golf course if available. Is this
a legitimate goal of the Comprehensive Plan? Goal needs clarification.
The Commission recommended developing an “Adopt a Creek Program” for
Minnehaha Creek.
Ms. Bissonnette left at 7:45 p.m.
6. Communications - Recent City Council Action - July 6, 1998
7. Miscellaneous - Death of Ernie Peterson, Director of Inspections
Mr. Garelick stated that Ernie was a friend of the Planning Commission and a very
dedicated City employee who would be sorely missed.
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by:
Shirley Olson
65
Recording Secretary
66
Item 9b*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
July 8, 1998 - 5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg, Walter
Hartman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Joanna Brownstein, Tom Harmening, Nancy
Sells, Cindy Stromberg
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Scott, Campbell Knutson
1. Call to Order
Chairperson Gavzy called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 8, 1998
Commissioner Hartman moved approval of the minutes of June 10, 1998. Commissioner
Gothberg seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
a. Election of Officers
Commissioner Gothberg nominated Commissioner Gavzy for Chairperson.
Commissioner Hartman seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor.
67
Commissioner Gavzy nominated Commissioner Courtney as Vice-Chairperson.
Commissioner Hartman seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor.
Commissioner Gothberg nominated Commissioner Hartman as Secretary.
Commissioner Gavzy seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor.
b. Development Agreements - Home Renewal Program
Mr. Harmening said that the agreements are based on the agreement used by the
City of Richfield in its program. He said that special attention was paid to the
items related to the Authority's protection in the case of a default or
nonperformance.
Mr. Scott said that the agreement is very similar to many development agreements
that are used in this type of arrangement. He explained that the significant
difference between the two agreements is that before closing on the sale of the lot
to Sussel, the developer has to have a purchase agreement with the homeowner.
The terms of the Al Stobbe Homes agreement allows the developer to build on
spec as Stobbe does not yet have a homeowner lined up.
Ms. Brownstein commented that Bruce Nordquist of Richfield's program told her
that when Richfield started its program, it allowed developers to build on spec to
provide flexibility, but that as time went on and the city built up a pool of homes
and builders, that method became unnecessary.
Mr. Scott reviewed the overall structure of the agreement. The lot is sold to the
developer, the Authority closes on the sale of the lot with the developer, title is
transferred by a Quit Claim Deed at closing, developer pays purchase price and
the Authority gives the developer a Quit Claim Deed which is subject to all of the
provisions in the development agreement which gives the developer title. The
Authority allows the developer to place a mortgage on the property for
construction finance purposes, if applicable, but the Authority must approve the
construction financing management mechanisms. Certificate of Completion is
given upon completion of the home in accordance with the plans and specs and in
accordance with the approved development agreement.
Commissioner Gavzy asked about breach of contract.
Mr. Scott reviewed the remedy sections of the agreement.
Mr. Scott commented on the importance of careful review of the construction
financing arrangement and administration of the construction loan.
68
There was a discussion between Mr. Scott, Commissioners Gavzy and Hartman
regarding transfer of title by Quit Claim Deed.
Ms. Brownstein noted the advantages of being close to the City's Certificate of
Completion and Occupancy process. Inspections staff and Ms. Brownstein will
keep each other informed of construction issues.
Commissioner Hartman asked if there was a back-up system in the event of
problems with the lender's appraisal or if the proposed value was too high to
attract a potential buyer. Mr. Scott and Mr. Harmening responded that action
could be taken in that situation, but it would be an unlikely circumstance as
buildable single family lots for move-up housing in St. Louis Park are very
desirable.
Commissioner Gavzy asked about the City of Richfield's experience with default
or other problems. Ms. Brownstein responded that Bruce Nordquist of Richfield
has reported to her that Richfield hasn't experienced any defaults or had to take
any severe action despite the completion of almost 80 homes. All of their
problems have been remedied through negotiation in a relatively short amount of
time.
Mr. Harmening said that as the program grows, he expects it will become easier to
administer and review of development agreements won't be as time consuming.
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Housing Authority authorize execution of
development agreements with Sussel Corporation for the development of a
property at 2916 Maryland Avenue South and Al Stobbe Homes, Inc. for the
development of the property at 2814 Blackstone Avenue South, in accordance
with the guidelines of the Home Renewal Program. Commissioner Courtney
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor.
c. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House Update
Mr. Harmening asked Ms. Anderson and Mr. Scott to comment on a Hamilton
House eviction proceeding. Ms. Anderson provided background on the situation.
An informal hearing was held, the eviction was stayed and agreements were made
by the tenant. The agreements have not been adhered to, and additional
incidences have occurred. Eviction will again be pursued, and Mr. Scott said he
felt this case could result in the filing of an unlawful detainer and possible court
case.
Mr. Scott reviewed the recent decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals
which states that the Court has the right to determine in a public housing situation
whether or not the conduct is severe enough to justify eviction. Mr. Scott said he
69
has some concerns about whether or not the Authority could ultimately be
successful in evicting the tenant. He remarked that if it did go to Court it would be
important to emphasize that public housing is not housing of last resort and that
authorities have to have the ability to enforce leases and be able to terminate
people in certain situations because it impacts the whole public housing project.
Commissioners Gavzy and Hartman indicated they supported eviction
proceedings in this case as well as a possible court case if that becomes necessary.
d. Administrative Plan for Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Programs
Resolution No. 446
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority adopt Resolution No. 446
approving the Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Certificate and Voucher
programs. Commissioner Hartman seconded the motion, and the motion passed
on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman
voting in favor.
e. Funding Applications - Public Housing and Section 8
Ms. Anderson reviewed applications which staff would like to pursue.
Tenant Opportunities Program (TOP) would fund development of programs to
increase supportive services at Hamilton House. Ms. Anderson said that she
believes that $17,000 of the grant could go to the TRAILS program.
Ms. Anderson said that staff has decided not to apply for the Economic
Development and Supportive Services Program funding (EDSS) outlined in the
report. She explained that as staff read through the entire notice of funding, they
learned that the Authority would have to have matching funding to the amount
applied for from other agencies and at this time the Authority isn't able to support
such in-kind funding.
Social Service Coordinator at Hamilton House. Ms. Anderson explained that
currently staff is unable to pull together needed services to persons at Hamilton
House. She explained that if the current TRAILS Program Coordinator provides
some of these services, a portion of this funding could be channeled into the
TRAILS program.
Family Self-Sufficiency Services Coordinator for Section 8 Participants. Ms.
Anderson said the grant provides one year of funding and can probably be
renewable each year. She said the notice stated that there appears to be enough
monies to fund all applicants.
70
Mr. Harmening explained that one of the primary motivations applications are
being made relates to the dual track approach being used with TRAILS.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if these grants could provide all TRAILS funding.
Ms. Anderson said the total grant for the Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinator is
close to $15,000. She said that this year TRAILS is receiving $10,000 from
Public Housing and if the Authority received the TOP grant there would be more
than enough to set aside funds for additional years or to enhance the program.
Ms. Anderson said that grant notification should occur in December or January.
Commissioner Gavzy asked about the level of activity of the Hamilton House
Resident Association. Ms. Anderson said that it has been very active up until the
last six months, during which time the leadership has not been strong. She said
that tenants are aging and have a lot of medical concerns. There are issues with
the association in terms of staff time, which is why the Social Service Coordinator
is very important. Ms. Anderson added that at the general meeting regarding
funding applications, residents were very enthusiastic about the prospects of
programs which could assist in revitalizing the organization and other services for
residents.
Commissioner Gothberg moved that the Authority authorize the Executive
Director and Chairman to sign 1) Memorandum of Understanding, 2) Partnership
Agreements and 3) a letter in support of the Hamilton House Resident Association
to be included in the Tenant Opportunities Program application and to sign and
submit applications to fund 4) a Public Housing Service Coordinator and 5) a
Section 8 Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinator. Commissioner Hartman
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg and Hartman voting in favor.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 98-7
Commissioner Gavzy moved approval of Claims List 98-7 as amended in the
amount of $77,069.69. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg and
Hartman voting in favor. (Note: Commissioner Courtney left the meeting at 6:00
p.m.)
b. Communications
(1) Monthly Report for July, 1998
The report was accepted and filed.
71
(2) Action Plan Update
Mr. Harmening reviewed recent activities relative to the Action Plan.
These activities include Hollman discussions, Habitat for Humanity
project, CIAP application, 4d program approval, TRAILS funding and
reorganization of staff structure.
Commissioner Gavzy inquired about the upcoming Housing Authority
meeting with the City Council. Mr. Harmening said the meeting was
scheduled for the Council's August 10th study session.
Ms. Brownstein noted in regards to Habitat for Humanity, that she recently
met with staff from Hennepin County and Habitat to work out details of
the purchasing process. Habitat's preference is that Habitat enters into the
purchase agreements. She explained that HOME funds were actually
awarded to Habitat, not the Housing Authority. Ms. Brownstein reported
that she will continue working with the City Housing Inspector and
Habitat to identify potential properties.
(3) Discussion of Hollman Funds
Ms. Brownstein reported that she met with the Minneapolis Public
Housing Authority specifically about four areas of interest to the Authority
and the City regarding Hollman funds. These areas include ways to use
Hollman money for TRAILS, possibilities of a lease/purchase program,
gaining more units, and the City's desire to include some Hollman units in
a large redevelopment project.
Ms. Brownstein said that regarding TRAILS, there aren't necessarily
Hollman funds but there are some social service funds that can be accessed
if someone from Minneapolis who was displaced as a result of Hollman
comes to St. Louis Park and participates in the TRAILS program. Ms.
Brownstein said that there are some small revenue opportunities that staff
will keep informed of.
Ms. Brownstein commented that Hollman funds may not be the best
source for a lease/purchase program because Hollman funds have to stay
in rental units. She explained that if there were a way, when a house was
sold, to roll that money right back to a rental unit, Hollman would be a
possibility. She added that in her experience with lease/purchase
programs, that would be a very complicated process.
Ms. Brownstein provided background on how lease/purchase programs
operate in response to a question from Commissioner Hartman.
72
Ms. Brownstein said that there are many possibilities for Hollman funds
for development use.
Ms. Brownstein and Mr. Harmening provided background on the City's
Park Commons redevelopment project, specifically Phase I which could
include a small number of Hollman units and federal Low Income Housing
Tax Credit units.
A discussion followed regarding how a housing mix is determined in a
livable communities/new urbanism project.
Ms. Brownstein said that discussions regarding Phase I are on going with
planning staff and will be outlined further when a developer is chosen
early this fall.
There was a discussion about what kind of new project could be developed
which would allow Hamilton House to become a seniors only building,
including such questions as whether or not such a project could occur at
Park Commons and whether or not Hollman funds could be used.
Commissioner Gavzy said he'd like staff to research whether or not such a
project would have to be a separate building and how many units would be
required.
Ms. Anderson said that this kind of process would require a study of the
waiting list to determine whether or not the needs of applicants would be
met by a new project.
(5) Legal Fees
Commissioner Gavzy thanked staff for the report on legal fees.
The meeting ended at 6:30 p.m. A motion for adjournment was not made as Commissioner
Gothberg left at 6:25 p.m., leaving two commissioners present.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Walter Hartman
Secretary
min-july:c\hsg
73
Item 9c*
August 7, 1998
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADVISORS MARKETING GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 459.76
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,614.66
ALLEN-BRADLEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 966.17
ALMSTED'S NEW MARKET CONCESSION SUPPLIES 510.29
ANTONSON, DALE STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 149.25
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 84.88
AT&T TELEPHONE 8.29
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.14
BAILEY, JEANETTE M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BARON, EILEEN OFFICE SUPPLIES 248.59
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,692.93
BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 80.20
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 612.64
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.61
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 237.24
BRO TEX INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 366.45
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BURGOON, MARY SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 30.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 381.24
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,185.00
CHEYENNE LAND CO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CITY OF ST PAUL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,750.00
COMPUSA INC COMPUTER SERVICES 106.49
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 4.32
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 227.67
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 800.04
DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 219.16
DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 301.71
DELEGARD TOOL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 206.85
DEVOE & RAYNOLDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.56
DIAMOND T RANCH INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 766.00
DOKKA, MARGARET SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 16.00
DOLPHIN LEATHERY GENERAL SUPPLIES 111.83
DVORAK, JUDY YOUTH RECREATION 8.00
ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 849.11
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 542.58
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.90
ERV'S LAWN MOWER REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 251.65
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 804.20
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 174.57
FOREMOST MECHANICAL CORP. PLUMBING 60.50
GALAXY COMPUTER SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 210.75
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 489.74
GRAFIX SHOPPE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 429.20
74
GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS D CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 7,391.44
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 464.99
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 257.95
HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 113.08
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 37.62
INDELCO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 79.45
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 44.09
INTERSTATE BEARING COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (166.20)
INTL ASSN OF ELECT INSP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00
INTOXIMETERS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 10.18
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1,020.27
JUSTUS LUMBER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.28
KUENNEN, DENISSE SEASON TICKET-RESIDENT 90.00
KULCZYK, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 125.46
L M C INSURANCE TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,726.93
LAKELAND ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 102.24
LARSON ELECTRIC CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 201.72
LAWRENCE, RANDY GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.13
LUSE, JOHN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 146.00
M R P A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 200.00
MC LAUGHLIN, JOANNA L SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 200.00
MID AMERICA METER INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 40.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 471.11
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,923.60
MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 21.30
MORGAN, DANIEL GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00
MPLS FINANCE DEPT ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,977.64
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 163.84
MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 177.43
NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 349.45
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 132.53
NORWEST BANK MN-NATIONAL ASSOC INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 1,055.00
NRG DISTRIBUTORS MOTOR FUELS 7.14
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.43
OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 779.31
OTTO, ELEANOR MISCELLANEOUS 30.00
PAPA JOHNS PIZZA GENERAL SUPPLIES 165.16
PARKLYNN BUILDERS COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 368.00
PARTNERS IN PERSONNEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 630.00
PARTS PLUS-NORTHSTAR AUTOMOTIV EQUIPMENT PARTS (209.18)
PASHA PUBLICATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 97.00
PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 6,718.00
PPG INDUSTRIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.57
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.48
PRECISION DESIGN SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 277.50
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT PARTS 101.99
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.30
R J MARCO CONSTRUCTION BUILDING 577.09
75
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.36
RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 90.08
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,231.43
RECYCLING TIMES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 99.00
RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 75.40
ROLLINS OIL CO MOTOR FUELS 135.38
SAMPSON MILLER ADVERTISING GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.17
SANFORD, WALLACE GENERAL SUPPLIES 207.98
SCAN AIR FILTER INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 282.78
SCHLEGEL, TERESA MISCELLANEOUS 30.00
SCHRODER, ALIX SEASON TICKET-NONRESIDENT 15.00
SCHWAAB INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 28.18
SISSEL, MARY SEASON TICKET-NONRESIDENT 40.00
SMART TEMPTATIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 296.40
SPS COMPANIES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 79.76
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 113.22
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 95.74
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 1,038.59
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS 171.50
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 236.13
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 328.00
UNITOG RENTAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.51
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 333.98
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 275.62
WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 156,842.09
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,443.44
WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 14.63
WESTERN SECTION - IAEI TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 150.00
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83.50
ZIEMER, MIKE GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.00
219,466.59
August 14, 1998
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA MINNEAPOLIS MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,211.81
ACTION DESIGN REMODELERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 920.00
ADVANTA FINANCIAL CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
ADVISORS MARKETING GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 906.59
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 260.92
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 232.00
AMERICAN SALES LEADS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,139.04
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 535.30
ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 277.59
APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00
ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 712.80
ASPLUND COFFEE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 120.00
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES TELEPHONE 220.97
AUCOIN, KIMBERLY INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
76
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 382.00
AVI CONSULTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,115.90
BANNER CREATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,485.00
BCL APPRAISALS INC. BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 525.00
BENNETTS CYCLE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.97
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,887.31
BLOOMBERG, COLLEEN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.98
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS (354.59)
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,314.73
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BURNIECE, MICHELE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
CALGON CARBON CORPORATION CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 7,943.76
CARLSON, NANCEE OTHER REVENUE 25.00
CARROLL, WADE GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.00
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 1,204.39
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,434.63
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 180.00
COLOR TILE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 6.82
COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 263.42
CRILEY, KATHI L OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 149.95
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES LANDSCAPING SERVICE 1,140.25
CYBERGUYS GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.82
DALCO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 310.91
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46.88
DILORENZO, KIRK SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00
DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 50.00
DOHMAN, WARD SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00
DRILLING, MIKE BUILDING RENTAL 220.00
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 230.93
EWING, FREDA INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
FITZGERALD, JOHN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.97
FOUR SEASONS TRAVEL INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 727.25
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.44)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 480.26
GILBERT, SCOTT SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 235.00
GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 406.14
GRAYBO COMMUNICATIONS MEETING EXPENSE 349.32
GREENBERG, SUSAN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
HABERMAN, JULIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 498.54
HAMMER, MARTIN ADULT ATHLETICS 110.00
HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF COMM CORRE SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 6,400.00
HILL, HAROLD INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
HOFFER COATINGS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 830.70
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 305.77
HRENO, PATRICIA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 109.46
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,343.35
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 50.00
77
IMAGE NOW SIGNS & DESIGN GENERAL SUPPLIES 361.19
INTERSTATE BEARING COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (166.20)
JANSSEN, EVERETT INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
JOHNSON, MILLIE MEETING EXPENSE 39.82
KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN CAPITALIZED INTEREST 1,994.31
KELZENBERG, ERIK SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 19.50
KENNEDY ENTERPRISE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 465.75
KOENS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 532.50
LAGERMEIER, DANIEL J INSPECTION-COMMERCIAL 190.00
LAND CARE EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 313.14
LARSON ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 340.96
LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 221.57
LINSK FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 205.00
LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 245.00
MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,102.28
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 689.08
MATTHEWS LAWN SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 626.22
MC CASHIN, BRENDAN D MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 82.88
MC HUGH, JOHN T MEETING EXPENSE 231.07
MC KEVIT, MARYLYN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
MC LAUGHLIN, JOANNA L SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 200.00
MCM ELECTRONICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 146.87
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.03
METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 90.42
MICHALES, MARILYN J PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,024.00
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.10
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.87
MINN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 10.00
MINN UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 297.99
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 5,257.16
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 660.43
MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 3,738.79
MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 711.09
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 10,323.60
MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,800.00
NEOPOST GENERAL SUPPLIES 266.00
NRG DISTRIBUTORS MOTOR FUELS 14.28
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 113.80
OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 91.57
OHLIN SALES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.34
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 311.73
OLSON, DON GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.00
OLSON, JILL K MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 63.08
OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 522.86
OXBOROUGH, GERALD L INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 3.58
PARK REAL ESTATE INC INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
PARTNERS IN PERSONNEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 630.00
PARTS PLUS-NORTHSTAR AUTOMOTIV EQUIPMENT PARTS (192.57)
78
PBBS EQUIPMENT CORP BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 48.30
PEHLER, CHRIS ADULT ATHLETICS 260.00
POWERS, TOM MEETING EXPENSE 21.42
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 28.30
RAINBOW FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 61.24
RAINBOW TREE COMPANY INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 4,873.60
REUVERS, TERRANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 31.85
ROMAN, JOANNE YOUTH RECREATION 10.00
ROMAN, ROBERT GENERAL SUPPLIES 550.00
RYDER STUDENT TRANSPORT SERVIC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00
SCHEAR, MORRIS INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75
SPEEDY LOCK & KEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 75.00
SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 43.43
ST LOUIS PARK TRUE VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 35.45
STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,584.11
STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.79
STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 89.34
STEINBERG, PHILLIP O INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
STOVER, CYNTHIA S YOUTH ATHLETICS 95.00
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 889.75
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 3,600.00
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 11.18
SUPERIOR FORD MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 18,274.00
SYSTEMS SUPPLY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 78.00
TAUTGES REDPATH & CO LTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,758.25
THYMES TWO CATERING GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.33
TIMBER CREST CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,200.00
TWIN CITY CATERING INC MEETING EXPENSE 65.19
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 266.41
TWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 276.10
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 130.00
TYPPO, NICOLA M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 125.00
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.35
UNITOG RENTAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 645.92
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.52
VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,244.55
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS SMALL TOOLS 30.64
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 8,021.25
WALDOR PUMP COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 15,954.46
WESTREX INTERNATIONAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 59.80
WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 9.59
WILDUNG, MERRILEE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.11
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES (95.85)
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 168.11
167,983.52
79
August 12,1998
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADVANCED STATE SECURITY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,722.50
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,433.38
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 28.14
ALLEN & ASSOCIATES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 380.00
ALLEN, JULIE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 505.00
BYERLYS GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.50
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00
DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY BOND INTEREST 242,321.25
GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,161.00
HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 253,530.26
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 236.44
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 10,068.01
KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 2,802.17
LARSON, DOUG MEETING EXPENSE 160.11
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 96,598.41
MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 321.00
MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 615.00
NSP CO NOTES PAYABLE 75,862.31
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 116,055.38
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 44,638.89
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,209.73
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 9,816.31
RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 37,354.95
U S BANK BOND INTEREST 38,923.74
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,921.22
WESOLOSKI, JACKIE MEETING EXPENSE 648.47
950,594.17
August 12, 1998
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 4,286.21
4,286.21
August 12, 1998
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ALLINA MEDICAL GROUP WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 49.00
METHODIST HOSPITAL WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 220.23
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HSM WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 1.59
PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 2,038.93
PAULOUSKI, WADE INJURY PAY 880.04
THOMPSON, JIM INJURY PAY 858.98
WEST, JAMIE INJURY PAY 182.00
4,230.77
80
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11a*
Meeting of August 17, 1998
11a*. Authorization to advertise and receive bids for purchase of Granular
Activated Carbon.
This report is for the authorization to advertise and received bids for the purchase of
Granular Activated Carbon for the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 - 2935 Jersey
Avenue South.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report,
ordering the purchase of GAC, approving the specifications, and
authorizing receipt of bids.
Background: The Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Treatment Plants are located at 2935
Jersey Avenue (Water Treatment Plant No. 1) and at West 41st Street and Natchez Avenue
(Water Treatment Plant No. 4). These plants came on line in 1986 and 1993, respectfully. These
GAC plants treat drinking water contaminated by the Reilly Tar and Chemical Plant. This
treatment is effective in removing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) contaminants. The
GAC adsorbs the PAH’s as the contaminated water passes through the filters. The GAC
eventually becomes loaded with the PAH particles and is no longer effective in the removal of
the PAH’s and must be changed out. The GAC treated water is tested to measure the amount of
PAH’s removed. When the level of PAH’s in the treated water increases to the Drinking Water
Advisory Level the GAC is scheduled to be replaced. The replacement of the GAC has been
done annually at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 since the plant was put into service. GAC
replacement at Water Treatment Plant No. 4 is anticipated to be done once every two or three
years. Groundwater contamination is more severe at Water Treatment Plant No. 1.
Considerations: The most recent test results from the lead GAC filters at Water Treatment
Plant No. 1 indicated the level of PAH’s will exceed the Drinking Water Advisory Level and the
GAC must be replaced.
Financial Considerations: The estimated cost for replacement of the GAC is $45,000. The
revenue source for the purchase is the Water Utility Fund. The 1998 Water Utility Budget has
allocated $90,000 for the replacement of GAC at Water Treatment Plants Nos. 1 and 4.
Feasibility: The replacement of the GAC is budgeted for and is required at this time to process
drinking water to regulated standards.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Anderson/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
81
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DIRECTORS REPORT,
ORDERING THE PURCHASE OF GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON,
APPROVING THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING RECEIPT OF BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Director of Public Works requesting authorization to advertise and receive bids for the purchase
of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) for Water Treatment Plant No. 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The report of the Director of Public Works regarding the purchase of GAC for Water
Treatment Plant No. 1 is hereby accepted.
2. The purchase of GAC is hereby ordered.
3. The specifications for the purchase of GAC as prepared under the direction of the
Director of Public Works are approved.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper an
advertisement for bids for the purchase of Granular Activated Carbon under said
approved specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) 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.
5. The bids shall be tabulated by the Superintendent of Utilities who through the Director of
Public Works shall report his tabulation and recommendation to City Council.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council August 17, 1998
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
82
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11b*
Meeting of August 17, 1998
*11b. School District #283 request for funding from Cable TV franchise fees
School District #283 requested $25,000 for 1998 and made a presentation detailing
future needs of $37,047 in 1999 at the May 5, 1998 Cable TV Advisory
Commission meeting.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve the 1998 School District request for $25,000,
and budget up to $7,500 for an equipment grant in 1999 from
Cable TV Franchise Fees, contingent upon the receipt of further
information requested of the School District.
Background:
The School District has received funding from Cable TV franchise fees since 1982, and in the
last few years the Cable TV Advisory Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
action to the City Council. The Commission has traditionally felt that franchise fees should be
used to produce programming and text for Educational Channel 32, a benefit available to all
cable viewers.
In 1996 the Commission proposed criteria for future School District funding requests, which
were approved by the City Council at the July 1, 1996 meeting along with $25,000 in School
District funding:
1) Detail on how the funds will be used to program Cable Channel 32 and produce
original programming;
2) how the District’s television production facilities will be made available to the
community;
3) a review of the previous year’s programming as reflected in monthly program
reports as provided by other locally funded channels.
In 1997 the Commission recommended $25,000 for School District operations with an additional
grant budgeted for 1998 of up to $8,000 for an automated playback system. The Council
approved this action at the July 7, 1997 meeting. Gerald Burt, video production technician for
the School District, demonstrated the system for the Commission at their May 5, 1998 meeting
hosted by the School District. As a result there is frequent programming on Educational
Channel 32 this summer, and the text display is dramatically improved.
At the May 5, 1998 meeting the School District elaborated on a request for funding for 1999.
The demand for video production is expected to increase with the implementation of the
Minnesota Graduation Standards (see attachment 1997-1998 Highlights). The most pressing
need is to replace 3 studio cameras purchased in 1985 and a video switcher purchased in 1984,
83
which could cost $35,000. A second area of concern is the portable camcorders, which have
been frequently repaired due to heavy student use. The District requests $5,100 for 6 cameras
and tripods to accommodate the expected increase in use. The Commission voted unanimously
to recommend that the Council approve $25,000 in franchise fees to be granted to the District,
and set a special Cable Commission meeting for June 18 to discuss the further funding request,
after reviewing the District’s equipment inventory.
On June 18 the Commission identified a number of questions that need answers before they feel
comfortable making a specific recommendation (minutes attached). With the City’s budget
process under way and the District’s needs for 1999, the Commission voted to budget $7,500
for an equipment grant for camcorders and tripods pending satisfactory answers to these
questions:
• More information regarding how many students will be using the equipment and how much
time each student will be using it. In light of the new curriculum to be instituted this fall and the
noted higher demand for use of equipment, the Commission wondered if the cameras and
tripods requested would be adequate.
• More information regarding maintenance of equipment. The Commission believed that
maintenance of equipment is an important aspect and should be considered.
• More thorough inventory of current equipment.
• More information regarding the school districts financial input to the program. Commission
would like to see some sort of match system - perhaps a percentage. The Commission would
like to request five to six years of past and/or projected figures.
• More information as to how the School District will help the Non-Public Schools in 1999. This
question came as a result of Mr. McHugh’s proposal to School District #283 to assist Non-
Public Schools by loaning them the old camcorders and accessories that will be replaced and for
Community TV to help with training and editing if the NPS’s will in turn commit to submitting
at least four programs a year for local cable viewing. This item addresses the need to improve
the availability of the District’s equipment to the community.
The Commission’s total recommendation for 1999 could reach $32,500, if all questions are
addressed, while the District is requesting $37,047. The Commission felt that additional
support was warranted but that a modest increase, granted for a specific equipment purchase,
was the best recommendation to avoid a precedent of automatically increased support. This
amount seems reasonable since franchise fees have increased in the last few years (see attached
chart) from $185,000 in 1995 to an estimated $240,000 in 1998. There have been small rate
increases each year as per the Federal Communications Commission’s Social Contract with Time
Warner, and the number of cable subscribers has grown from 10,300 to 12,141 in that same
period.
84
Recommendation
Motion to approve immediate payment of the School District request for $25,000 for 1998, and
budget $7,500 for an equipment grant in 1999, contingent upon receipt of further information
requested of the School District.
Attachments:
1997-98 Highlights (April 21, 1998 memo from Carolyn Charles)
CATV Fund Revenues chart
Approved Minutes: Cable TV Advisory Commission meeting May 5, 1998 & June 18, 1998
Unapproved Minutes: Cable TV Advisory Commission meeting July 16, 1998
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
85
To: St. Louis Park Cable Commission
From: Carolyn Charles
Date- April 21, 1998
Re, Cable Television Update
1997-98 Highlights
New Equipment
Later this week the installation of an automatic playback system will be completed. That will
allow us to run more programs, more often, and more regularly. The new character generator
creates a much more professional avenue for our weekly announcements and program listing.
Interactive Classroom
The I-TV room hosted three sections of Japanese a day using a new Tl line and our
existing 1-net system.
Live Sports
Two boys basketball games were aired live. This gave students a chance to run every
aspect of a live multi-camera show.
World Language News Show
The world language department started a monthly news program. The show contained news
spoken in French, German, Hebrew, and Spanish. Next year Japanese and Sign Languages hope
to be added.
School Year Production Estimates
-26 different classes and organizations doing production
-200 hours of studio work .-
-700 hours editing
-80 new programs
The list of programs created to date is attached.
Future Challenges
Expanding Demand
The demand for video production is increasing with implementation of the Minnesota
Graduation Standards.
Staffing Production Facility
Staffing for after-hours use of the facility, which was cut for this school year, needs to
be considered in future plans.
Communication
Cablecasting information about the channel and about the school district and using
other vehicles to promote the channel will require extra staffing.
86
Equipment Replacement
Plans need to be made for replacement ot equipment that is either worn out or
obsolete. The capital cycle does not address this issue.
1997-1998 Expenditures
Video Technology Assistant (year round) $28,758 (salary and benefits)
Equipment 10,761*
Supplies 500
Taping after-hours events 1,000
Total: $41,019 (-$8,000 = $33,019)
* Cost of automated playback system and character generator. Once the installation is complete,
the invoice information will be passed on to the commission. Last summer the commission
indicated that a grant of $8,000 would be available toward the purchase of an automated
playback system. We would hope that the district would be reimbursed for that amount.
1998-99 Request
Projected Funding for Ongoing Operations
Video Technology Assistant (year round) $30,147 (salary and benefits)
Equipment 5,100 (6 camcorders and tripods)
Supplies 500
Taping after-hours events 1,300
Total: $37,047
Funding for Future Challenges
Additional Staffing during School Year $10,250 (half-time salary and benefits)
Staffing for After-hours Use 12,500 (half-time salary and benefits)
Staffing for Clerical Duties 5,000 (part-time salary and benefits)
Replacement of Studio Equipment 35,000
Total: $62,750
87
Cable TV Fund Revenues
Year School
District
allocation
Total
Franchise
Fees
Administration notes
1987 20,000 95,379 Negotiation of new franchise agreement
with cable operator
1988 21,000 113,463 Finalize franchise proposal
1989 23,000 117,254 • First year of current franchise
• I-Net Committee established
1990 27,000 135,736 March 1 rebuild (add ppv, more premium
channels)
1990 15,000 60,000 Received franchise equipment grant
1991 25,000 158,212 MSC issue (contracted with cable
attorney)
1992 25,000 170,211 School District technology referendum
passes
1993 25,000 169,605 • 1992 Cable Act implemented
• Contracted with cable attorney to
assist in regulation of basic cable
1994 25,000 170,561 Transfer to Paragon Cable (contracted
with cable attorney)
1994 (estimate)18,000 72,000 Received franchise equipment grant
1995 25,000 184,860 Transfer to Time Warner (contracted
with cable attorney)
1996 25,000 213,706 • Upgrade to 550 MHz
• Hired engineer to certify upgrade
• Contracted with cable attorney for
franchise amendment language
review
1997 25,000 228,000
(estimate)
Approved equipment grant to School
District for auto playback system in 1998
1998 25,000
+ 8,000
240,000
(estimate)
• Paid auto playback equipment grant
(approved in 1997)
• Franchise amended re: survey
1999 25,000
+ 7,500
248,000
(estimate)
• Possible City survey/finish Council
Chambers remodeling
• Proposed camcorder/tripod grant
1999 22,000 86,000 • 1/1/99 franchise equipment grant due
from Paragon
88
APPROVED MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998 - 6:00 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK HIGH SCHOOL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, and Robert Jacobson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Anthony Raiber
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV
Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Gerald Burt, Carolyn Charles, and Barbara Pulliam of School
District #283.
1. Call to Order:
Vice Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 6: 05 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
It was noted that Jill Boddy resigned her position on the Commission.
3. Approval of Minutes of February 10, 1998:
Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to approve the minutes of the
February 10, 1998 St. Louis Park Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. The
motion carried unanimously.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
It was noted that there would be no report of the Chair, no report from Paragon Cable, and
that there would be discussion regarding Paragon’s survey under Communications.
Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson to accept the agenda as amended.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. Old Business
A. School District auto playback system grant and tour.
Mr. Burt showed the Commission the control room where the new equipment
purchased with the $8000 grant is housed. Mr. Burt showed the Commission the
PVC8 playback controller and the six new Panasonic VCR’s and demonstrated how
89
they worked along with Pentium PC using EDGE TV graphics (from Alpha Video)
incorporated into the SCALA character generator software. Several aspects of the
equipment were discussed as well as many questions including solicited vendors,
power outage procedures, specific performance issues of the character generator,
etc. The Commission commended Mr. Burt on his presentation and agreed that the
grant was well utilized.
Ms. Barbara Pulliam entered at 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Dunlap noted that a copy of an inventory or breakdown of the costs would be
needed prior to reimbursing the school for the expense. Ms. Charles provided the
list of expenses before the meeting was adjourned.
6. New Business
A. School District’s request for funding:
Mr. Dunlap noted that Ms. Pulliam and Ms. Charles were present to discuss the
School District’s request for funding from the cable franchise fees collected by the
City.
While waiting for Ms. Charles to enter, Mr. Dunlap reported receiving a grant
request for $25,000 from Mr. Tom Stringer of the School District.
Ms. Charles entered at 6:50 p.m. She invited questions and discussion regarding the
information that was included in the packet. Several questions were asked of Ms.
Charles including current requirements of students using the studio, and whether a
system of control is in place over what students produce. Ms. Charles explained
that curriculum in the state of Minnesota is changing so that incoming freshmen will
be required to complete a full year-long course in media production. She explained
that each student would be required to produce a “body of work” that would be
shared with an “audience” perhaps through cable TV, in-house, or through the
community. She further explained that each student would be required to
experience writing scripts, filming, editing, acting, etc.
Mr. McHugh asked whether the School District assists non-public schools in the
district by opening their studios for use. Mr. Charles reported that there have been
few requests but that they have always been cooperative with non-public schools
and the requests for use and tours. She noted that funding is often raised. She
included that most non-public schools do not have an elaborate program but that
they are also exempt from the state requirement.
Commissioner Jacobson suggested that the Commission and St. Louis Park High
School work together to develop a plan to provide time to non-public schools where
they could utilize the studio provided they pay for the costs associated. There was
brief discussion about this throughout the meeting.
90
Commissioner Browning asked about equipment replacement and the District’s
procedure in the matter. Ms. Charles explained that the District follows a capitol
cycle and all requests for equipment are filtered through this cycle. She noted that
many other requests come before media equipment.
Ms. Charles responded to a question regarding equipment maintenance that there
had not been much need in the area. The Commission suggested that more attention
be placed in putting aside funds for equipment repairs, etc.
Mr. Dunlap inquired about the school buildings data networking and whether they
are still using the Institutional Cable Network (I-Net) for data delivery. Ms. Charles
responded that they are currently using the I-Net and feel it is an important
component in communication. She also reported that there are currently issues with
WAN’s and LAN’s and that there is talk about possibly going to Fiber.
There was also discussion regarding Mr. Burt’s position and what types of activities
are planned for the newly expanded position. She explained that he would continue
to maintain the appearance of the Cable Channel, some production activity, some
maintenance, and possibly provide student access over the summer. She also noted
that she has been in touch with KUOM, the radio station at the University of
Minnesota, who has sent School District #283 a proposal that is being reviewed. If
accepted, it would be revisited each year as the needs of the District change.
KUOM (770 AM, a daylight only station) would transmit on KDXL 106.5 FM
when the District wasn’t programming it.
There was discussion regarding the pending Technology Plan and when it would be
approved. Dr. Pulliam explained that the plan far exceeds available funding by five
to seven million dollars. She further noted that the Board has been discussing
seeking referendum assistance. She explained that the plan includes technology and
facilities improvement and would allow a good foundation and a proactive approach
for future expansion. She noted that the Board hopes to make a decision in June
regarding the direction of the plan.
There was further discussion as to what equipment priorities the school had. Ms.
Charles would supply a “wish list” and reported that updating the two studios was a
priority.
The Commission then discussed the role of the Commission and what its next step
entails concerning grants for the School District. They decided to make a decision
regarding a recommendation for the $25,000 grant request first, then submit a
request to City Council for approval.
91
Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to recommend to the City
Council to approve the School District’s $25,000 grant request. Motion carried
unanimously.
School staff left at 8:00 p.m.
7. Reports
Vice Chair Huiras inquired regarding new Commissioners and if any had been recruited.
Mr. Dunlap reported that a message has been put on the cable channel advertising vacancies
and one person has expressed interest in this Commission, however, City Council’s meeting
agendas have been full and no appointment has been made.
There was extensive discussion regarding the survey that Paragon forwarded to the City for
review. It was briefly explained that Paragon conducts a customer satisfaction survey every
three years and that it is generally the same survey they conduct for all cities they service.
Copies had been distributed and discussed with Commissioners at a previous discussion to
formulate a thorough response to Paragon. Many concerns were discussed regarding the
survey and what were seemingly biased questions. Mr. McHugh and Mr. Dunlap reported
that a response had been sent to Paragon who offered to comply with only two requests.
The Deputy City Manager and the Mayor have been informed and are very supportive of the
concerns expressed by the Commission and staff. The City is still working with Paragon
and the survey has not yet been conducted. Staff will report back.
Mr. Dunlap distributed the list of complaints received about their cable service and
commented that there was a minimal number of them.
Mr. Dunlap also distributed Paragon’s programming report for information.
Mr. Dunlap reported that Annual Filings will be discussed at another meeting, however,
reported to the Commission that Paragon has requested they not attend cable commission
meetings until December so questions regarding the Annual Filings or anything else should
be forwarded in writing.
Mr. Dunlap then distributed a Cable TV Fund Revenues sheet breaking down the past nine
year’s allocation of funds. Mr. Dunlap noted that this list does not include the $86,000 due
from Paragon by January of 1999 that will be shared with the School District. It was also
noted that the School District allocation has not been increased since 1990.
It was suggested that the Commission meet sooner than July to discuss the District’s needs
and how to allocate the money. It was decided to hold the next Commission meeting at
6:00 p.m. June 16, 1998 to discuss the equipment needs of the school as well as other
business.
8. Adjournment:
With no other business to come before the Commission, Bruce Browning moved, seconded
by Robert Jacobson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
92
APPROVED MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
JUNE 18, 1998 - 6:30 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and Anthony Raiber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV
Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary
1. Call to Order:
Chair Raiber called the meeting to order at 6: 35 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
All Commissioners were present.
3. Approval of Minutes of May 5, 1998:
Ken Huiras moved, seconded by Bruce Browning, to approve the minutes of the May 8,
1998 St. Louis Park Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. The motion carried
unanimously.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Ken Huiras to accept the agenda as presented. The
motion carried unanimously.
5. Old Business
A. School District Funding Request:
The Commission discussed the school district’s request of $37,047 at length. After
much discussion about the equipment listed and other aspects of the request, the
Commission concurred that additional information is required before a decision
could be made. The Commission requested the following information along with
the listed rationale:
* More information regarding how many students will be using the equipment and
how much time each student will be using it. In light of the new curriculum to be
instituted this fall and the noted higher demand for use of equipment, the
Commission wondered if the cameras and tripods requested would be adequate.
93
* More information regarding maintenance of equipment. The Commission believed
that maintenance of equipment is an important aspect and should be considered.
* More thorough inventory of current equipment.
* More information regarding the school districts financial input to the program.
Commission would like to see some sort of match system - perhaps a percentage.
The Commission would like to request five to six years of past and/or projected
figures.
* A member of the Commission also noted that he did not believe the Commission
should fund a staff position. It was believed to be the responsibility of the school
district to pay salaries.
* More information as to how the school district will help the Non-Public Schools in
1999. This question came as a result of Mr. McHugh’s proposal to School District
#283 to assist Non-Public Schools by loaning them the old camcorders and
accessories that will be replaced and for Community TV to help with training and
editing if the NPS’s will in turn commit to submitting at least four programs a year
for local cable viewing.
The Commission concluded to table the decision until the above questions could be
addressed by the school district. The Commission concurred, however, to recommend that
$7,500 be budgeted for equipment in addition to the $25,000 already recommended to
Council for approval.
6. New Business/Reports:
Commissioner Jacobson recommended that staff investigate a program offered by a local
vocational school that provides maintenance on AV equipment. Commissioner Jacobson
thought the school had locations in Hutchinson and White Bear.
Question was raised regarding Paragon’s Annual Filings. Mr. Dunlap reiterated that
questions regarding the filings should be put in writing so that it will not be necessary for a
representative to be present at Commission meetings. A response will then also be sent in
writing from Paragon.
Mr. Dunlap noted that input is requested by June 25, 1998 so a letter can be sent to Paragon
with adequate time for their response to be discussed at the next Commission meeting on
July 16, 1998.
Mr. Dunlap then reported that the survey Paragon was to conduct would not be re-written.
Paragon will conduct a general survey asking basic questions about customers’ cable
service.
94
For information, Mr. Dunlap reported that Clint Pires is the new Deputy City Manager.
Commissioner Browning noted that Mr. Pires was once a liaison on the Commission.
7. Communications from Chair:
Chair Raiber reported that he attended a Council Study Session March 23 to discuss the
Commission’s reimbursement. Council denied the request. City Council did not believe it
to be prudent to grant free cable to Commissioners, however, supported educational
conference attendance.
There was further discussion regarding the conferences, the types available, when and
where. Mr. Dunlap will forward information to the Commissioners as to a conference
scheduled in September in San Diego, California.
8. Communications from Staff:
Mr. Dunlap reported that Representative Billy Tauzin might be proposing legislation tied to
de-regulate cable television and propose an a-la-cart type menu. He will keep the
Commission informed.
9. Adjournment:
With no other business to come before the Commission, Bruce Browning moved, seconded
by Robert Jacobson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca L. Belz
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
95
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
JULY 16, 1998 - 6:30 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and Anthony Raiber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV
Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT: Guest Mary Jean Overend
1. Call to Order:
Chair Raiber called the meeting to order at 6: 40 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
All Commissioners were present.
3. Approval of Minutes of June 18, 1998:
Ken Huiras moved, seconded by Bruce Browning, to approve the minutes of the June 18,
1998 St. Louis Park Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. The motion carried
unanimously.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
One item under Old Business was requested to be added, for an update regarding the
information requested from the School District Funding Request. Mr. Dunlap provided the
update by saying that the School District has not yet been asked for the additional
information.
An update regarding the vocational schools and their maintenance on audio visual
equipment was requested. Course listings and degree program information from the college
catalogs on the Internet had been routed to Commissioner Jacobson prior to tonight’s
meeting. Commissioner Jacobson called the colleges for details, but most faculty were off
for the summer and no further information could be obtained.
Robert Jacobson moved, seconded by Ken Huiras to accept the agenda. The motion carried
unanimously.
96
5. Old Business
6. New Business:
A. Paragon Annual Filings:
Mr. Dunlap noted the written response included in the packet to the questions
addressed to Paragon Cable regarding the Annual Filings. Mr. Dunlap noted that
Arlen Mattern of Paragon addressed all the questions raised. Mr. Dunlap and the
Commission addressed a few responses and made clarification as needed. A
question about the company’s marketing efforts, raised by Commissioner Huiras,
will be referred to Mr. Mattern.
Question was also raised regarding whether the City Attorney was or should be
involved in the inquiry. Mr. Dunlap responded that separate specialized legal
council was contracted for cable issues, and had not been contacted in this case.
As an informational item, Mr. McHugh raised discussion regarding a copy of a flyer
received by some St. Louis Park residents. He questioned the Commission whether
they had received the flyer regarding upgrading the cable system to fiber optics. Mr.
McHugh and Mr. Dunlap reported that St. Louis Park already has the technology
and channel capability and wondered if the resident who brought the flyer in lived
near a border to one of the cities cited in the flyer.
High Definition TV was also briefly discussed and noted that cable people are
generally against it. It was noted that the issue of requirements for the HDTV has
not yet been resolved.
The Complaint Log was addressed and Commission wondered if complaint number
4 regarding poor reception on a standard cable package had been addressed and
resolved. Mr. McHugh reported speaking to the gentleman and referred him directly
to Paragon for his concern. Mr. McHugh noted that Mr. Mattern is very responsive
to customer concerns and Mr. McHugh has not heard back from the resident. It is
assumed that the matter was resolved.
Mr. Dunlap reported to the Commission that Mr. Mattern would provide a report
regarding cable outages in the City due to the storms this year.
B. Name Change to Telecommunications Commission:
There was much discussion on this topic and what ramifications the change would
bring to the Commission. It was identified by both staff and Commission that
changing the name to “Telecommunications” would greatly broaden the scope of the
responsibility of the Commission as well as the need for expertise to address new
issues. Mr. Dunlap added that other communication technologies and issues were
97
covered by other areas of City Government and could potentially pose relational
challenges.
Though the Commission believed that changing the name at this time would not be
in the best interest of the Commission, they agreed to hear a presentation from
another group who has made the change to a telecommunication commission. This
meeting will be scheduled for September 22, 1998 and the desired location was
noted as the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission.
7. Reports:
Mr. Dunlap reported that the average programming hours per week for Civic Channel 35
were 105 hours per week from January to June, compared with 97 hours per week last year
for the same period.
8. Communications from Chair:
Chair Raiber welcomed Ms. Overend to the meeting and thanked her for attending. It was
reported that Ms. Overend was a member of the Community Education Advisory
Commission and was visiting for the evening.
9. Communications from City Staff:
Mr. Dunlap noted that the City Council will receive a report from staff in August about the
Commission’s recommendation for School District funding.
10. Adjournment:
With no other business to come before the Commission, Robert Jacobson moved, seconded
by Bruce Browning, to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca L. Belz
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park