HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/02/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
FEBRUARY 6, 2017
(Councilmember Brausen Absent)
6:00 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION – Westwood Room
Discussion Item
1. 6:00 p.m. City Manager Evaluation
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Westwood Room
Discussion Item
1. 7:00 p.m. City Manager Compensation
7:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes January 3, 2017
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business -- None
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes January 3, 2017
3b. Study Session Minutes January 9, 2017
3c. Special Study Session Minutes January 17, 2017
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes January 17, 2017
3e. Study Session Minutes January 23, 2017
Meeting of February 6, 2017
City Council Agenda
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember
or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for
discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading
of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move
items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
Recommended Action: Mayor to take testimony and then close public hearing. Motion
to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project No.
4017-2000 for the 2017 Connect the Park project, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids for this project.
6b. 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
Recommended Action: Mayor to take testimony and then close the public hearing.
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement
project No. 4017-1000 for the 2017 Pavement Management project, approving plans
and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for this project.
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement
project No. 4017-2000 for the 2017 Connect the Park project, approving plans and
specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for this project.
6c. Appeal of BOZA Decision –Lane LLC (Marge Nelson) – 3338 Library Lane
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny the applications for a
256 square foot variance to allow 1,056 square feet of ground floor area for accessory
buildings.
6d. Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave S.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny the applications for a
20.7 foot variance to the required 25.0 foot rear yard, and a 2.0 foot variance to the
required 7.4 foot side yard required for a proposed addition to a home located at 3951
Quentin Ave. S.
6e. West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700
Recommended Action: Mayor to take testimony and close the public hearing. Motion
to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project No.
4017-1700, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Vision Steering Committee Appointment
Recommended Action: Motion to appoint new member to the Vision St. Louis Park
Steering Committee.
9. Communications – None
Meeting of February 6, 2017
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of December 24, 2016 through
January 27, 2017
4b. Adopt the following Resolutions imposing civil penalties for liquor license violations
according to the recommendation of the City Manager:
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016, at Blaze Pizza, 8126 Highway 7
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016, at Blue Fox Bar & Grill, 5377 16th St. W.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016, at Crave, 1603 West End Blvd.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016, at Noodles & Company, 8120 Highway 7
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016 at Prime Deli, 4224 Minnetonka Blvd.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016, at Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27,
2016, at Westwood Liquors, 2304 Louisiana Ave. So.
4c. Adopt Resolution for 2017 Liquor License Renewals for the license term of March 1,
2017 through March 1, 2018
4d. Adopt Resolution for 2017 liquor license fees for the license term March 1, 2017 through
March 1, 2018 pursuant to M.S. Section 340A.408 and Section 3-59 of the St. Louis
Park City Code
4e. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a donation from Discover St. Louis Park for
registration, hotel, airfare and cab fare for Jason West, Recreation Superintendent to
attend the 2017 National Association of Sports Commission (“NASC”) Sports Event
Symposium held March 27 – 31, 2017 in Sacramento, California in an approximate
amount not to exceed $2,500
4f. Adopt Resolution accepting a monetary donation from Jason Wallestad, Sonja Saunders
and Iris Wallestad in the amount of $1,000 for Westwood Hills Nature Center
4g. Approve an Agreement between the City and Hennepin County to further the goals of
the SWLRT (Green Line Extension) and the Southwest Community Works Investment
Framework
4h. Approve the 2016 Pay Equity Report
4i. Rescind Resolution 1573, repeal a portion of Resolution 4617 Item 5 (Yield signs on
W. 22nd Street at Kentucky Avenue), and Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation
of east-west stop signs on 16th Street and 22nd Street at Kentucky Avenue
4j. Adopt Resolution to Request to Advance Funds for MSA Rehabilitation Project - Texas
Avenue - Project No. 4017-1101
Meeting of February 6, 2017
City Council Agenda
4k. Adopt Resolution approving the Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements
between PLACE and Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)
4l. Accept for filing Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2016
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board
in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by
noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: City Council Closed Executive Session
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: City Manager Performance Evaluation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council will review the summarized responses from the annual
performance review for City Manager Tom Harmening and set general direction for 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: The City Council and City Manager will discuss the City Manager’s
performance evaluation in a Closed Executive Session. The information will be sent to Council
under separate cover.
Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at the next regular Council
meeting.
In accordance with Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The law states:
“All closed meetings, except those as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be
electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by
law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.”
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: City Manager Compensation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed at this time. The purpose is to inform the
Council of how the City Manager’s compensation has historically been determined, and to present
a recommendation for 2017 pay, pending acceptance of the City Manager’s performance
evaluation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council have other questions or need additional
information prior to setting the City Manager’s compensation effective January 1, 2017?
SUMMARY: The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set
when salaries are established for other non-union employees. Compensation must comply with
the state mandated salary cap. Council approved the pay range for this position to move consistent
with other positions and be adjusted by 2.75% for 2017 on January 3, 2017. The City Manager’s
pay was not recommended to change (he is still receiving his 2016 compensation level) until
approval of his performance evaluation.
This report details how the City Manager’s pay range is determined, and how a recommendation
has been developed for his 2017 compensation within that range in a way that complies with the
state statute on salary cap and the City’s new pay philosophy based on the 85th percentile of the
market.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All funds for this recommendation have been
included in the 2017 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
City Manager Employment Agreement
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special Study Session Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: City Manager Compensation
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The position of City Manager has a market evaluation conducted by the
consultant each year. As Council is aware, the City underwent a comprehensive study of positions
in 2016 and revised the City’s pay philosophy so that our pay is set to the 85th percentile of our
market effective 1/1/17. This report details the City Manager’s pay and how it relates to our new
compensation plan.
What is the City Manager’s current (2016) compensation?
2016 salary range for the City Manager was set at $159,406 - $187,537.
Salary cap in 2016 was $165,334.
2016 annual salary for City Manager is $165,334 and additional PTO of 279.33 hours (at
$79.488/hr. = $16,227) for a total of $187,537, not including car allowance.
Salary Cap Waiver Information
In 2002, the City filed for a waiver of the salary cap for the City Manager. We were granted a
slightly higher pay range at that time. Due to formula changes in the salary cap in the past, the City
only used the waiver for several years.
In mid-2016, we were informed that the salary cap waiver previously obtained in 2002 continues
to apply to St. Louis Park. This information was confirmed by our City attorney in conversation
with MN Management and Budget. We had assumed that the cap for the City of St. Louis Park
was $165,334 for 2016 but in obtaining information from the state, we were informed it was
actually set at $170,626 (the same level as City of Edina for 2016). Since this information was
obtained mid-year 2016 and we use PTO, it was determined that we would provide this information
to Council for the 2017 recommendation.
How does the state salary cap work?
State law limits the amount of compensation political subdivisions may pay employees. Under
current law, the maximum pay is 110% of the governor’s salary. Adjustments are made annually
based on the Consumer Price Index. Effective January 1, 2017, the salary cap limit is $167,978.
Salary cap and St. Louis Park 2017: The City of St. Louis Park requested and received a waiver
from the salary cap in 2002, allowing us to pay in excess of the cap up to a new limit; and with the
information above, the 2017 City of St. Louis Park cap with waiver is $173,356.
Items that are excluded from compensation and not subject to the cap are employee benefits that
are also provided to all other full-time employees, vacation/sick leave allowances,
health/dental/disability/life insurance, pension benefits, dues paid to civic or professional
organizations, reimbursement for expenses, and relocation expenses during initial year of
employment.
What market do we use for comparison of the City Manager’s compensation?
For regular City employees, our compensation plan defines our market as metropolitan suburbs in
Minnesota with populations between 25,000 and 90,000. Since Minnesota has a salary cap, the
data from our traditional market used for other full-time employees is artificially compressed for
the City Manager position.
Due to the salary compression in Minnesota, Council historically uses data from market pay of
comparable cities in the Midwest for this comparison. Our consultant gathers information from
Special Study Session Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: City Manager Compensation
International City and County Management Association (ICMA) comparable cities in Minnesota,
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois to make a recommendation for
market pay.
What is the consultant’s recommendation for the 2017 City Manager pay range?
Using the data as described above, and the City’s new compensation philosophy of max pay at the
85th percentile of the market, our consultant has recommended the 2017 pay range of $169,794 -
$212,243.
What is the recommendation for the City Manager’s compensation for 2017?
The City Manager’s current total compensation is $187,537 (including some salary included in the
salary cap, and other PTO time). Because this is not at the maximum of the new 2017 pay range,
it is recommended that the City Manager receive the same increase as other non-organized
employees who are not at the maximum of their range, which is double the standard increase. The
2017 standard increase was approved as 2.75%. Therefore, the City Manager is eligible for a 5.5%
increase in total compensation for 2017, or $197,852. Of this, $173,356 is salary subject to the
state salary cap.
2017 CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATION
Effective January 1, 2017, set compensation at $197,852 and to insure compliance with the salary
cap the following conditions apply:
Annual salary of $173,356 annually ($83.344 hourly) for the City Manager, not including
car allowance, in accordance with the salary cap.
Car allowance of $600 per month will be subject to the PTO program.
In addition, Council approves 293.91 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2017 (293.91
X $83.344 = $24,496).
What is the PTO program?
The PTO program was approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual. Section
9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees, including the
City Manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Subd. 9, shall receive
equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of PTO is determined by the City
Council. PTO is typically accrued on a per pay period basis, although the Council may issue PTO
as a lump sum amount. PTO may be used as earned, maintained in a PTO bank or cashed out upon
separation of employment. PTO is separate and not part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-
127). Each July 31, all hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan
account established for the employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution 05-104).
Funds in the Health Care Savings Plan can only be used for reimbursement of eligible medical
expenses after separation of employment.
What are the next steps?
The City Manager has historically requested not to have Council increase his compensation until
after approval of his performance evaluation. The Council is tentatively scheduled to approve the
City Manager’s evaluation on February 21. At that same meeting, Council will be presented with
an item to approve the new salary as outlined above, retroactive to January 1, 2017.
Special Study Session Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: City Manager CompensationPage 4
Special Study Session Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: City Manager CompensationPage 5
Special Study Session Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: City Manager CompensationPage 6
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 3, 2017
1. Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Thom Miller, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources
Director (Ms. Deno), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Pappas).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve
the EDA minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of Agenda
The EDA agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to approve
the EDA Disbursements.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. Electing 2017 Economic Development Authority Officers
Economic Development Authority Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2017
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to elect Anne
Mavity as President, Steve Hallfin as Vice President, and Gregg Lindberg as Treasurer to
the Economic Development Authority for the 2017 term.
The motion passed 7-0.
7b. Beltline Station Letter of Intent Resolution. Resolution No. 17-01
Mr. Locke presented the staff report. He noted the Letter of Intent is a non-binding
agreement that formally states the city’s intention to work cooperatively with the SWLRT
project to prepare agreements for the City/EDA or assigns to provide 268 park and ride
spaces in a ramp at the Beltline Station. The letter has been reviewed and approved by the
EDA’s legal counsel, and future agreements will be discussed at a study session in the near
future.
It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to waive the
reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 17-01, approving and authorizing signature of the
Beltline Boulevard Station City-led Parking Structure Letter of Intent (LOI).
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications – None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, Secretary Anne Mavity, President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of EDA Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the
period of December 24, 2016 through January 27, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in
accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA Bylaws?
SUMMARY: The Finance Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to review
and approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check and
those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the EDA’s Bylaws and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Disbursements
Prepared by: Kari Mahan, Accounting Clerk
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:33:07R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
100,670.85ADAGIO LLC HOIGAARD VILLAGE DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
100,670.85
79,264.21AQUILA SENIOR LLC AQUILA COMMONS G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
79,264.21
63,370.31BELT LINE PROPERTIES INC WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
63,370.31
31,557.26CEDAR LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS LLC ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
31,557.26
2,332.75CENTRAL PARK WEST DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
2,332.75
450.00CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
614.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
61.93DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
1,125.93
16,470.62DMD PROPERTIES LLC MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE BOND PRINCIPAL
13,529.38MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE BOND INTEREST
30,000.00
237,078.91DUKE REALTY WEST END TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
237,078.91
1,200.00EDAMDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,200.00
26,900.15EDGEWOOD INVESTORS LLC EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
26,900.15
107.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00CSM TIF DIST G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00MILL CITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00PARK COMMONS G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
Economic Development Authority Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 1
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:33:07R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
107.00ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
107.00AQUILA COMMONS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
105.50HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,282.50
62,759.84ELLIPSE II LLC ELLIPSE II G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
62,759.84
146,610.92ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR LLC ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
146,610.92
5,000.00FRANZEN LAW & POLICY GROUP LLC HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
5,000.00
339,886.57GOTTMAR II LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
339,886.57
488,271.23GOTTMAR LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
488,271.23
616.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,796.28WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,184.57ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
248,100.00VICTORIA PONDS G&A TAX INCREMENT - REPAYMENT
719.01PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,456.14CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,166.43MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,065.90PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
604.76EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,953.79ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
703.36WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,087.37AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
737.96HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
545.61HARD COAT G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
270,737.18
69,571.96HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
69,571.96
26.00HUNT, GREG DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
Economic Development Authority Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 2
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:33:07R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
7.02DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
33.02
180.00JBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
180.00
494.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LEGAL SERVICES
671.20BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES
654.86WEST END TIF DIST G&A LEGAL SERVICES
68.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
72.00PARK COMMONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
1,960.06
21,883.72MEDLEY ROW LLC HOIGAARD VILLAGE DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
21,883.72
65.93M-K GRAPHICS DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
65.93
12,722.26NEXT GENERATION CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,722.26
160.00OFFICE DEPOT DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
160.00
259,152.00OLYMPUS VENTURES LLC HOIGAARD 2010A DEBT SERV G&A BOND PRINCIPAL
13,557.08HOIGAARD 2010A DEBT SERV G&A BOND INTEREST
272,709.08
13.94PETTY CASH DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.94
94.23SELLS, NANCY DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
94.23
219,882.40SIDAL REALTY CO LTD PARTNERSHIP LLLP MILL CITY G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
219,882.40
100.00ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
100.00
Economic Development Authority Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 3
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:33:07R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
21,042.49WOODDALE CATERED LIVING OWNER LP WOODDALE POINTE DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
21,042.49
Report Totals 2,508,467.70
Economic Development Authority Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 4
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Donations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda:
From Amount For
Jason Wallestad
Sonja Sauders
Iris Wallestad
$1,000 Westwood Hills Nature Center program supplies
Discover St.
Louis Park $2,500
Travel and conference registration for Recreation
Superintendent Jason West to attend the 2017 National
Association of Sports Commission (“NASC”) Sports Event
Symposium held March 27–31, 2017 in Sacramento,
California
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 3, 2017
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guest: None
1. Updated Draft 2017 Legislative Agenda
Mr. Harmening noted the 2017 legislative agenda priorities. The 22 issues identified are broken
out into four subject areas: Transportation, Community Development, Public Safety, and General.
Mr. Harmening stated there are also additional items the council had requested to be added, and
he asked for feedback from the council.
Councilmember Sanger noted that information on Water Treatment Plant #4 needed to be updated.
She proposed that rank choice voting be added to the list, adding that schools were not allowed to
use this type of voting and that is the reason the city did not adopt it. Additionally, she asked that
funding for SWLRT be added as a high priority, as well as planning and analysis on autonomous
vehicles and how that will affect the economy.
Councilmember Mavity added that the SWLRT item may not be a priority since there is a path to
getting this funded outside of the legislature. She stated she is not sure the city’s lobbyist should
spend time on this issue.
Councilmember Sanger added she just wants the elected officials to know the city has this as a
priority.
Councilmember Mavity noted the TIF district changes should be presented as technical corrections
versus listing it as a TIF reform. She added this will need to be framed in this way.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is fine with the list provided by staff. Councilmembers Hallfin,
Miller, and Lindberg indicated they were also agreeable with the list provided by staff.
Mayor Spano added the topic on autonomous vehicle funding is fine, and it is also fine to raise the
SWLRT issue. However, he clarified that the council’s issues with rank choice voting were not
only because the school district cannot utilize this voting method. Mayor Spano added there is
nothing on the list about race equity, nor was there anything on affordable housing.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Miller stated the idea of crisis planning for incidents that might happen in the city
due to racial tension is another topic that he would like to address, especially as it relates to
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of January 3, 2017
communication issues. He added the broader concept is how the police are interacting with the
public and what the city does if a crisis occurs. Councilmember Miller added with the new police
chief staring soon, the city needs to be proactive on this issue. He asked for comments from other
councilmembers.
Mayor Spano agreed and said he has been talking with Mr. Harmening about this issue and also
about doing some police training related to this.
Mr. Harmening added that the Police Department has worked on scenarios and difficult
interactions that officers may face in the city. He added it would be good to review how the council
would respond in a crisis situation; practices of other cities; best approaches; and preparedness
when something happens.
Councilmember Mavity added how the internal plan is communicated to the community is of
concern. She asked staff if the city is communicating this information well enough to the
community and also if they are only planning for when a crisis occurs or communicating the city’s
whole approach.
Councilmember Miller stated crises will occur, and the city will need to be proactive and respectful
of the community in communicating.
Councilmember Lindberg agreed this conversation needs to happen sooner rather than later, even
prior to the start date of the new police chief, and he proposed it to be part of the January workshop.
He added, as a team of elected officials, the council needs a good strategy and to respond with a
unified voice.
Councilmember Sanger asked also to discuss a plan for council in the event a council meeting has
large numbers of disruptive people in attendance, including best practices for conducting the
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 9, 2017
The meeting convened at 6:36 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Thom
Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmember absent: Anne Mavity
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Deputy City Manager/Human
Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Principal
Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Fire Chief Koering; Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr.
Sullivan), Traffic Coordinator (Mr. Iverson), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy) and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Senator Ron Latz, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County Commissioner
Marion Greene, Representative Cheryl Youakim, Vic Moore, Franzen & Associates.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17, 23 and February 6, 2017
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda.
Councilmember Brausen suggested looking at funding options and costs for drinking water
purchased from sources outside of the city. He stated the city owes taxpayers more information on
options for purchasing drinking water, adding he knows other cities currently purchase from
outside sources as well.
Mayor Spano stated the city would still need to treat any water that might come from other cities.
Mr. Harmening agreed and also noted he was not prepared to discuss this issue tonight and cannot
react to this suggestion without reviewing it further.
Councilmember Brausen noted this is only something he is suggesting be looked into and
discussed at a future session.
2. 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed
Representatives
Staff prepared a list of legislative priorities and issues for discussion. Mayor Spano presented the
top eight legislative priorities and issues in 2017 for St. Louis Park. They include both state and
county items and are noted below:
CSAH 25 – Mayor Spano noted that a more pedestrian-friendly county highway is envisioned,
especially in the area of the triangle, near Yum. He also stated the vision for the area is to create
more bicycle trails and access for crossing. Additionally, branding of the road is something the
council wants to discuss further.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of Minnetonka Boulevard – Mayor Spano stated the
reconstructed Hwy. 100 Bridge was a great improvement - increasing the bicycle, pedestrian and
intersection efficiency and safety, along with improving the west to east roadway connection.
However, the rest of Minnetonka Blvd. now needs rehabilitation to ensure it can best accommodate
bicycles, pedestrians and motorists.
Hennepin County Commissioner Greene stated the county is re-evaluating how they are doing
capital projects and is pleased to inform the Council that provisional funding has been included in
the county’s capital budget. She added they would like to tie the St. Louis Park work on Texas
Ave into their work on Minnetonka Blvd.
Transportation Funding – Mayor Spano stated this is a vital component in planning for and
meeting the physical, social, and economic needs of the state and city. With regard to transit
financing, Mayor Spano pointed out that any operating subsidies necessary to support this system
should come from regional or statewide funding sources and not from the municipalities.
Community Development - Elmwood TIF District Technical Correction – Mayor Spano noted
a technical correction is needed to clarify that the 2009 Special Legislation extending the duration
of the Elmwood TIF district allows for the funding of public infrastructure. Mr. Harmening stated
that the EDA attorney is concerned that the language in the 2009 legislation was not crafted as
well as it should have been in order to allow for dollars to pay for infrastructure.
Affordable Housing – Mayor Spano noted that with more folks moving into the urban core and
first ring suburbs, there is more demand but not enough supply for affordable housing. He stated
the city would like to see the $70 million bonding package for housing infrastructure and the $20
million GO bond request move forward.
Commissioner Green stated there is a fund for affordable housing programs, and the goal is to
provide $25 million total to compete on the open market for naturally affordable housing. She
added they would love to see a state contribution, also.
Water Treatment Plant #4 – Mayor Spano explained that while VC levels are under EPA
requirements, the MDH has its own standards and expressed concerns to the city about that
particular plant. He noted the city recently took Water Treatment Plant #4 out of service and is
hoping to get financial help on an upgrade project for it. Mr. Moore stated the state is looking for
special legislation on that, but the money in the budget for water is loan dollars from the capital
fund and not grants. He added there are many water treatment plants in the state looking for
funding, so this may be difficult.
Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway Program – Mayor Spano explained this is a specific
request for race equity coursework and training that would help people of color to join the police
force. He added this would be a pilot program to shorten the time of training police officers.
Currently, there are four metro cities partnering on this program – St. Louis Park, Bloomington,
Eagan, and Maplewood. Mr. Harmening stated he can contact the other three cities regarding the
pilot program. Mayor Spano added the council believes this program fits well into the city’s race
equity work. He added it is a tangible step in the right direction and very much needed.
Mr. Moore suggested the four cities work together on the police pilot program. Mayor Spano stated
this program would be in addition to the city’s current police recruiting efforts.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
3. 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Iverson updated the council on the project.
Mr. Iverson stated staff has been working on the design of several sidewalk, trail, and bikeway
segments proposed in 2017. These segments are included in the Connect the Park project and will
be presented to council in February for approval at a public hearing. In the meantime, staff will
continue to meet with residents to get feedback. Mr. Iverson explained that the projects reviewed
this evening are stand-alone segments that are separate from those in the Sorenson Neighborhood
and along Utica Avenue. They are not associated with the city’s annual pavement management
program. Mr. Iverson noted that two public meetings and a demonstration project on 28th Street
have been held regarding these projects, and a final meeting will occur on January 12.
Xenwood Avenue – Mr. Iverson stated the sidewalk will be constructed to ADA standards with
new ramps. Drainage and minimizing impacts of tree loss will also be addressed.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if there is a plan to repair sidewalks once trees are removed. Mr.
Sullivan noted a gradual sweep is made around the tree, and if the tree is to be removed, the
sidewalk is either straightened or the tree is replanted and sidewalk then built around the new tree.
Councilmember Miller asked about any neighbor complaints. Mr. Iverson pointed out that the
majority of opposition is from individuals concerned about the impact within their own yards.
36½ Street at Monterey and Excelsior Boulevard – Mr. Iverson stated there have not been any
comments related to this work, as there is only one home owner at the location, and the rest of the
housing is rentals. He stated nine trees are to be removed and replaced.
Barry Street – Mr. Iverson noted this area borders Benilde St. Margaret High School and Beth El
Synagogue. He pointed out the two areas being considered for sidewalks on the north and south
sides of the street. Mr. Iverson noted with students parking across the street, the concern is to create
a safe pedestrian crossing area from the school to the synagogue. He stated staff does not have a
recommendation either way and neither did the neighbors. Mr. Iverson added staff is looking for
recommendations from council on this project.
Mr. Sullivan stated the school does have a person directing traffic two times per day, which is
helpful for safety on the street. Additionally, he noted, staff is looking at ways to add sidewalk
extensions into the school to help channel pedestrians and street crossers from the parking areas to
the building, adding that then the school would have responsibility for cleaning the snow on these
sidewalk extensions.
Utica Avenue Trail – Mr. Iverson stated work would be done from the existing pedestrian bridge
up to the connection to Cedar Lake Trail in order to complete the trail.
Councilmember Sanger stated last year the council was told that work on this segment would entail
straightening the curve on Utica by the church. Mr. Iverson stated that is not part of this segment;
however, staff is looking at a long-term fix for the curve.
Councilmember Miller asked if boulevard trees are going to be added to help create a buffer. Mr.
Iverson stated yes.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
Councilmember Sanger asked if the new owners of the church at this location are interested in
creating an easement. Mr. Iverson stated staff is having conversations on that with the owners.
Councilmember Lindberg asked about the trail crossing at this location, and the possibility of
moving it toward the other bend in the road. Mr. Iverson stated this solution had been discussed.
Mr. Sullivan stated it is a challenging spot, and staff is looking for the best way to connect to the
existing trail.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is a way to create another entrance to the trail that is under
the bridge or if it is possible to redesign the hairpin turn there. Mr. Sullivan stated they have not
looked at this, but can look into it.
Mr. Iverson also pointed out updates to bikeway segments at the 28th Street corridor from
Virginia Avenue to Highway 100.
Councilmember Lindberg asked how many parking stalls are at Ainsworth Park. Mr. Iverson stated
staff is proposing extending the parking bay to accommodate 18 vehicles instead of the original
design to accommodate 12 vehicles.
Councilmember Lindberg added he has received feedback from his ward’s residents on this, noting
that there is serious concern about the impact to Pennsylvania, Quebec, and Oregon Avenues,
especially as it relates to sporting events held there in the summer. Mr. Iverson stated staff is also
looking at more parking for sledding in this location and will provide more data at the public
hearing.
Councilmember Sanger added the bikeway to Blackstone from the west is a very narrow road, and
she would like to discuss this further, along with a walkway to the park building. She added the
public has not been informed about putting a trail through the park, and she assumes the council
would like more public feedback on this. Mr. Iverson stated this will be back for further discussion
in February or March.
Mr. Harmening asked what the traffic is like on Blackstone. Mr. Iverson stated it is around 500
cars per day, adding staff will provide more data on this at the February meeting, as well.
Texas North – Mr. Iverson stated this segment will include simple signing and striping, with
elimination of parking on the east side, parking on the west side, and buffers for lane narrowing
and traffic calming.
South Texas – Mr. Iverson noted the bike lane project here and more complications with this area
since it borders Hopkins. He stated Hopkins is looking at a reconstruction project on Texas in
2018, which could impact the timeline.
Mr. Sullivan stated this segment is important as it is creating a north south connection and a system
with an overall corridor.
33rd Street – Mr. Iverson stated this segment will connect Oak Hill Park and Aquila Park and
provide a bike connection to the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Mr. Sullivan stated staff will present an updated analysis to council at the February 6 meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
Councilmember Lindberg asked what the timeline is for the Texas Ave. projects. Mr. Sullivan
stated it will be completed by mid to late summer.
4. Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
Mr. Hunt and Mr. Locke presented the update.
Mr. Locke stated that since the beginning of the SWLRT process, the city and EDA have sought
to facilitate transit-oriented development (TOD) at the Beltline Station and to minimize, if not
eliminate, the land area dedicated to Park & Ride facilities. To accomplish that goal, the EDA/City
will need to take a series of actions and enter into agreements over the next 2-4 years regarding a
Beltline Station Park & Ride facility and the adjacent redevelopment site. At the January 3 EDA
Meeting, a Letter of Intent with the Metropolitan Council was approved. The staff report outlines
these action items. Tonight’s discussion will focus on the RFP process to identify and select a
developer for the Beltline Station Redevelopment Site and Park & Ride facility.
Councilmember Brausen stated that the climate action plan also needs to be incorporated into this
development. He added the city should be aggressive on affordable housing here and also help to
develop employment for minorities on this project. He added it will be important for the city to
make a conscious effort to pursue the use of minority contractors on this project. He added he
would like this proposal to integrate what is learned in the 2017 visioning process and asked if
staff could postpone the decision about a developer until September or October of 2017.
Councilmember Sanger asked about a ballpark range of TIF likely to be requested from the
proposed developer. Mr. Hunt stated developers will need to conduct their due diligence of the site
in order to properly prepare their TIF request.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the city can create a requirement period for the use of minority
contractors or sub-contractors. She added she would rather have more points allocated to the
physical structure and less weight to proposed commercial uses. She stated she would hate to see
all restaurants and no other commercial space and asked how many parking spaces would be
required. Mr. Hunt stated parking will be under the office buildings and in conjunction with the
268 required for Park & Ride. Councilmember Sanger stated she is concerned that more Park &
Ride parking spaces will be needed. Mr. Hunt stated that is all the SWLRT project will pay for.
Councilmember Sanger stated she is concerned there will not be enough Park & Ride spaces
provided, and this will be a difficult situation. She added the ramp should be expandable. Mr.
Locke stated the ramp will be expandable. He added the developer may want to build parking for
their own purposes, as well; however, because of the expense related to more parking, Mr. Locke
stated he is not inclined to say we should tell the developer to build more Park & Ride parking
than the SWLRT project will pay for.
Councilmember Sanger noted she understands this but added that the ramp will not be usable when
it is under construction while building new decks, so that will make it a difficult issue.
Councilmember Hallfin stated there may not be a need for as much parking because of the transit
that will be available. Mr. Locke added we would hope there will be less need for parking over
time.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
Mayor Spano stated he is not in favor of funding Metropolitan Council parking, adding the council
has already stated this. Councilmember Brausen agreed.
Mr. Locke confirmed the areas of concern expressed by the City Council. He noted that small
minority business will be included in any proposal, and if the developer provides more affordable
housing than our Inclusionary Housing Policy requires, they would get extra points for that.
Additionally, there will be some type of scoring on sustainability, and the developer should also
consider the climate action plan. The development should be constructed to support a reasonable
amount of commercial space and it should be a mixed use development.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the office portion will be a large corporate client or a mix of small
offices. Mr. Locke stated in this market, there could be 40,000 square feet for a headquarters or a
clinic. He added that many major office users want to be on light rail lines, so that could make this
project interesting to many commercial businesses.
Councilmember Sanger noted that at Excelsior and Grand, the city put a limit on the size of
commercial space, so as not to have a big box retailer. Mr. Locke stated there will not be a big box
retailer allowed at the Beltline Station location either.
5. Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
Ms. Deno stated the council directed staff to implement a standard process and format for boards
and commissions to follow for the development of annual work plans.
Ms. Kennedy stated boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the council. Annual
work plans ensure that the priorities of the city council and each board or commission are aligned
and that the city has the appropriate resources in place to support their work. Ensuring each board
and commission has a clear understanding of their charges and direction will allow each group to
operate more efficiently and effectively. The proposed process will also provide opportunities for
meaningful communication and collaboration between the council and each board/commission.
She provided an overview of the proposed process which would include an initial meeting between
the Council and the chair and staff liaison from each board and commission to discuss initiatives
and goals that should be included in the annual work plan. The chairs and staff liaisons would
then take the council’s feedback to their respective groups and work on developing their work plan
during the summer months. Draft work plans would be reviewed by the Council in the fall and
then formally approved on a regular agenda. Work plans would take effect annually on January
1st.
Councilmember Miller stated it seems like this process will require a lot of council time over the
summer and fall. He added this feels like a lot of process, and asked when the commissions and
boards would have time to actually do their other work, outside of their work plan.
Councilmember Brausen stated he likes the proposal and is looking forward to giving direction
and being involved in their planning process. He wants to have a clear concept about what each
commission does and wants to give them the council’s expectations also. He stated this process
will make things easier and clearer.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he loved the proposal and noted it has great structure. He stated
communication is of the utmost importance with boards and commissions, and this helps open up
communications in a more collaborative way. He stated this process will take more time and energy
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
on the council’s part and more time and energy on the part of boards and commissions, but it
provides more clarity, and provides more for our community. He stated he hopes this process will
work well.
Councilmember Hallfin stated this is good work and looks good in theory; however, in practice he
hates it. He stated he has been on boards and commissions, and he does not like the blanketing of
all of them. He added some commissions are working great, and they are supposed to advise the
council. He is not a fan of more advising of the commissions by the council, adding there is no one
size fits all solution for all boards and commissions.
Councilmember Sanger stated this process would not fit for BOZA or the Planning Commission,
and agreed that one size does not fit all for every board and commission. She added her bigger
concern is what the council wants the boards and commissions to do and what the issues are that
we have had with them. She added the council has not been clear with them about what they want
them to focus on, so the council needs a discussion first about each commission. She added if the
council does not do this, the boards and commissions will come with their plan, and if the council
states what they want after the fact, the commissions may lose members. She added the council
needs to get on the same page first.
Councilmember Brausen added he thinks this is a flexible enough tool and sets goals for each
group; however, he does agree with Councilmember Sanger in that the council needs to do some
work ahead of meeting with the commissions, in order to have clarity.
Mr. Harmening stated the charge is very narrow for commissions such as Planning and BOZA, but
added perhaps there may be an initiative the council wants them to study or provide input on.
Mayor Spano agreed with Mr. Harmening about a more thoughtful process; however, he is
concerned there are more touch points in this process than needed, and if the ESC comes to the
council with their work plan, it will be a two-hour conversation. He stated he would like the staff
liaison to have a stronger role in what is going on. Mayor Spano added the council already has a
lot of work on their plate and reviewing every commission work plan has him concerned. He added
charge #4 should not exist, and he is concerned about a board or commission having a conversation
themselves, and then setting a policy without the council’s knowledge.
Ms. Deno stated this process is only an example and was taken from the City of Edina as a model.
She added staff wanted to put something together for the council that could be useful.
Mayor Spano added he believes the staff liaisons should be doing this work with the commission
or board, and the council should not get too deeply involved.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he understands the Mayor’s concerns, but his concern is the
mechanism being provided for the staff liaison. Councilmember Lindberg asked if there is enough
information provided to the liaison to be successful and for collaboration.
Mayor Spano added it is up to the staff liaison to ask the council. He stated he is concerned council
will spend too much time on each work plan, and this is work the staff liaison should be doing.
Mr. Harmening stated the boards and commissions were created to advise the council on topics.
But if direction is not provided to them, they will decide what they want to work on. He continued,
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
this process will just provide an opportunity for the council to help its’ boards and commissions
narrow their focus and identify their priorities.
Councilmember Miller suggested the staff liaisons come to a council study session, with priorities
as a starting point. Then council can decide if their list aligns with council’s priorities, and send
them back to work further on their plan.
Mayor Spano stated the council then needs tell the staff liaison clearly what is needed.
Councilmember Hallfin stated the liaison can report to the council, as a guideline, but not a rigid,
blanketed process.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he dislikes the idea of meeting only with staff liaisons or
commission chairs. He stated it is not a good idea to have the liaison carry back what the council
wants, and flexibility in structure is necessary.
Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Lindberg adding some liaisons may not
have as much experience as others. He stated this process is only a tool, which allows the counci l
to garner some feedback from commissions. He added we do have issues right now with
commissions, that need to be worked on, and we need to provide clarity with expectations.
Mayor Spano agreed, but noted this means the council will need to be disciplined on this. He added
each commission should do a work plan, and the staff liaisons express job is to carry the
information back to the commission. Mayor Spano added the council needs to stay high level on
this, adding this is his concern. He further stated we need a more robust role for staff liaisons, and
possibly bringing the commission chair in for a final review of the work plan.
Mr. Harmening stated once this process begins, it will smooth itself out. He added this process
will only involve spending an hour talking about each commission with the staff liaison and
brainstorm about what the council wants for next year.
Ms. Kennedy added this process can be conducted in one or two study sessions and it can be
streamlined.
Mayor Spano stated this sounds more manageable.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening stated his annual performance review is upcoming and asked the council if the tool
used in the past was adequate for the process. The council confirmed it was and asked Ms. Deno
to move forward with the process
Councilmember Brausen noted the Walker Project, and stated he is glad this is being done.
Mayor Spano mentioned the “Pianos on Parade” project, where pianos are left outside in a
neighborhood or location within a city, and then played by citizens as a way to bring folks together
through music. St. Louis Park is being asked if there is interest in participating in this project. This
will be up for further discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2017
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Update
7. Public Art Update – 4900 Excelsior & Central Park West Projects
8. November 2016 Monthly Financial Report
9. Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement Project Update
(City Project No. 4017-4000)
10. Vision St. Louis Park Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 17, 2017
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Sr.
Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Project Engineer (Mr. Wiesen), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guest: None
1. 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Ms. Heiser and Mr. Wiesen provided an overview and recommendations for the project. Staff
sought council direction regarding the installation of the sidewalk segments noted in the report and
whether staff should pursue narrowing of certain street segments. The Engineering Department
has been working on the design of the 2017 Pavement Management Project and a number of
sidewalk segments adjacent to the streets being rehabilitated in the Sorenson and Birchwood
Neighborhoods.
Mr. Wiesen noted that annually the pavement management project rehabilitates several miles of
local residential streets. This year the streets to be rehabilitated are located in Pavement
Management Area 4. Street rehabilitation work consists of removing and replacing existing
bituminous pavement and replacing portions of concrete curb and gutter, as needed. Other work
includes sewer repairs and water main replacement. This year there is one sidewalk segment in the
Connect the Park plan located in Pavement Management Area 4. Additionally, there are a number
of sidewalk gap segments under consideration.
Mr. Wiesen noted this report provides an overview of the proposed pavement rehabilitation, water
main replacement and sidewalk construction for 2017. The council will be asked to approve the
project at the February 6 Council Meeting. At that time, cost estimates will be provided.
Mr. Wiesen explained that construction will take place from May through November. Water
quality and removing pollutants from stormwater will be addressed within the project scope.
Stormwater management tools will include tree trenches, pervious pavement, and SAFL baffles.
Mr. Wiesen presented information on proposed street widths for certain street segments and the
benefits of reducing impervious pavement.
Mr. Wiesen presented the recommendation criteria which was considered in the evaluation
process. They include traffic volumes; existing sidewalk percentage vs. proposed sidewalk
percentage; street widths; connectivity to sidewalk network and destinations; impacts (trees,
retaining walls); and cost.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of January 17, 2017
Councilmember Sanger noted segment #37 Utica Avenue, west side, 27th to 28th Streets, and stated
it needs to be reconstructed as it is not up to the city’s construction standards. She noted it is an
unimproved road, with only a partial segment. She added she has been told by residents the existing
sidewalk segment should be removed and no sidewalk should be included there. Councilmember
Sanger pointed out this is a dead end. She added there is no opportunity at this segment, as well as
no pedestrians or traffic on that block, so it would be a waste of money to put a sidewalk there.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out that segment #37 may be part of what the city is hoping is a
designated trail connector to the larger system.
Mr. Sullivan stated there is a proposed trail connection that comes down the west side, connects
to 27th Street and down Webster to 28th Street. He pointed out this has been discussed with
residents, but there has been no formal evaluation yet.
Councilmember Mavity asked how bikers can get to the West End from this location. Ms. Heiser
said staff is currently working on a bridge connection over the tracks at this location. In the next 5
years, this will be a connection to the West End, and Utica Trail will be included in the report to
council on February 6.
Councilmember Mavity added that this feels like a disconnect, and it also feels dangerous for
bikers to cross the street facing traffic.
Councilmember Sanger noted the segment being discussed is a one block segment that connects
to nothing.
Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Mavity and is in favor of having a sidewalk
there.
Councilmember Hallfin added he does not think a sidewalk should be there; however, he does
agree to a trail connection there. He stated that makes sense, especially with no traffic there.
Councilmember Mavity agreed with Councilmember Hallfin, adding a bike trail is needed there,
but not a sidewalk.
Mr. Harmening pointed out this could be added in the future.
The council agreed to remove all of the sidewalk in this location.
Councilmember Sanger referenced segment #6, Webster Avenue, east side, stating she agrees there
is a need for a sidewalk there as it goes up to Webster Park. However, she pointed out this should
be a community sidewalk and not a neighborhood sidewalk, noting a community sidewalk is the
type that connects to parks and transit stops and should be close to the street. She added that for
the person who lives in the house that has no buffer yard, it makes it hard for residents to keep it
clean when plows go by. She stated the main reason to have a sidewalk there is because of the park
and transit.
Councilmember Sanger also pointed out segment #15, Zarthan Avenue, east side, Lake Street to
Minnetonka Boulevard. She stated this is narrower than any other streets in this area, and
questioned the need for a sidewalk there. She added there is an existing sidewalk, and since the
street is so narrow, there is no need for additional sidewalk. Mr. Wiesen stated there would not be
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of January 17, 2017
as many impacts to trees, and with existing sidewalks there, staff thought that as a safety measure,
a gap should be recommended.
Ms. Heiser stated this portion is unique because Zarthan Avenue is narrow, and cars park on one
side. She added there is 561 feet of sidewalk here and only one tree impacted to complete the
connection. Ms. Heiser stated it is a low-impact street, with only 223 vehicles per day, and
moderate cost. Staff made the recommendation based on this information.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he agrees with staff here, adding the sidewalk makes sense in
order to fill these gaps.
Ms. Heiser reiterated that staff is talking to neighbors first before removing any segments, and will
present these recommendations at the February public hearing, as well.
Councilmember Mavity stated she absolutely supports building a sidewalk on the east side and
wants this to be a walkable, safe community.
Councilmember Sanger stated if it is the will of the council to build a sidewalk here, then it should
be a community sidewalk.
Councilmember Sanger noted segments #19 and #20, Alabama East and West, Lake Street to
Minnetonka Boulevard. She pointed out that there are some sidewalks there now, and she supports
adding more, as it connects both school and bus stops and also goes by Keystone Park.
Councilmember Sanger noted again this would also fit the definition of a community sidewalk,
and it needs to be treated as such.
Councilmember Sanger also referenced the Barry Street sidewalk project that was discussed at the
last Study Session. She asked on which side of the street the sidewalk will be located. Ms. Heiser
stated staff is still working on this, and it will be brought to council at the February 6 meeting. She
added staff will provide a matrix of this project and make recommendations that will include costs
and impacts to vegetation and properties in the area.
Councilmember Brausen discussed segment #4, the south side of Hamilton Avenue between
Alabama and Zarthan Avenues. He stated if there will be sidewalks on the west side of Zarthan, it
makes sense to have a stretch on the south side of Hamilton Avenue as it seems to be a connectivity
issue for walking around the block, even if there is no traffic there.
Mr. Wiesen added there are low traffic volumes there. Ms. Heiser added there is a proposed
sidewalk on the frontage road, so that was the thought process in this instance.
Councilmember Brausen also asked about the sidewalks at segments #16 and #17, on Alabama
Avenue, on the west side. Mr. Wiesen stated staff is not recommending sidewalks here due to low
traffic volumes and to impacts to three trees on one property. He added that on Alabama on the
west side, due to traffic volumes, staff recommends only one sidewalk, as there are impacts to trees
there, also.
The council determined that after this discussion, they would leave all 37 segments on the report
as recommended by staff and address them further at the council meeting and public hearing on
February 6.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of January 17, 2017
Councilmember Sanger asked about pervious pavers and if they are recommended for use, noting
that they were not very successful in Minneapolis and had to be removed. Ms. Heiser stated they
are proposed for a parking bay, but staff will provide more information on their durability.
Councilmember Lindberg noted the pavers had been used successfully for boat lanes at Three
Rivers Park, adding they have held up very well.
Councilmember Lindberg asked if there will be more parking bays for the bikeway. Mr. Sullivan
stated there were 12, and now there will be 18 stalls. He added staff will calculate how many trees
were removed and what was replaced and will provide that information for council at the February
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Minutes: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 17, 2017
1. Call to Order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Thom Miller.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), CFO (Mr.
Simon), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Becky Bakken, Discover St. Louis Park
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
Mayor Spano stated he was invited to attend the 2016 Mayor’s Conference on
Entrepreneurship held in St. Petersburg, FL, November 30–December 2. The City received
a monetary donation from the Kauffman Foundation in the amount of $1,382.02 for travel
and conference registration expenses. Mayor Spano stated this conference was on issues
related to under-represented groups, including women, minorities, and race equity. Mayor
Spano thanked the foundation for this donation, which allowed him to attend the
conference.
2b. Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
Becky Bakken, President of Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP), provided an annual update
on the activities and the 2016 economic impact report for the non-profit organization. Ms.
Bakken noted that the hospitality and tourism industries show $13 billion generated as a
whole, adding that tourism means economic vitality for St. Louis Park. Ms. Bakken
commented when more visitors come to St. Louis Park everyone benefits, noting that once
someone experiences an area in general, they are twice as likely to return, and from tourism,
economic growth follows.
Ms. Bakken stated St. Louis Park added search engine marketing in 2016 and advertised
on MPR and on The Current. She noted that website traffic showed 26,841 unique visits,
with email, direct, and referral traffic directed from Minneapolis About and Explore
Minnesota sites, as well. Additionally, Discover St. Louis Park marketed to Fargo, ND,
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2017
and Sioux Falls, SD, and saw great results that aligned with set objectives for the year. She
added that Chicago visitors always visit the city in high numbers.
Ms. Bakken stated that social media, including Facebook, had the highest growth in
demographics and allows DSLP to connect with the community. She added that new hotels
coming to the city in 2017 will also make a difference.
Ms. Bakken noted that the Golden Valley agreement enhanced DSLP in 2016; aided in
relationship building; and enhanced relationships with hotels to provide year-over-year
growth. She added that looking ahead, DSLP will utilize the ROC and will roll out a new
website and a new creative strategy, and will gear up for 2018 Super Bowl participation.
Councilmember Mavity thanked Ms. Bakken for her presentation and asked about
programs at the new ROC, wondering if DSLP already has leads or clients for bookings
there and what DSLP envisions at the ROC. Ms. Bakken answered that DSLP is working
with the city’s Park and Recreation staff; presenting at trade shows; talking with
tournament organizers; and meeting with numerous groups who may not have facilities for
their events. She added there is more opportunity now for groups interested in ice time,
farmers’ markets, and concerts.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Special Study Session Minutes November 28, 2016
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the November 28, 2016 City Council Special Study Session Meeting Minutes as
presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the December 19, 2016 Special Study Session Meeting Minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016
Councilmember Brausen noted on page 5 there is a typo at the bottom of the page which
should read “manner” instead of “matter.”
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
approve the December 19, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as corrected.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
3d. City Council Minutes January 3, 2017
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2017
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the January 3, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 17-013 authorizing the elimination of permit parking
restrictions in front of 4104 Utica Avenue South.
4b. Approve the updated Financial Management Policies dated January17, 2017
4c. Moved to 8a.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 17-014 authorizing the quick take condemnation procedure
for public purposes for the W. 37th Street Road and Bridge Reconstruction Project.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 17-015 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from
Kauffman Foundation in the amount of $1382.02 for travel and conference
registration expenses of Mayor Jake Spano to attend the 2016 Mayor’s Conference
on Entrepreneurship which was held in St. Petersburg, FL on November 30 –
December 2, 2016.
4f. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of
October 19, 2016.
Councilmember Mavity requested that Consent Calendar item 4c be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda to 8a.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item 4c to the Regular Agenda as item 8a; and to waive reading of all resolutions
and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Reappointment of Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service Commission
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
reappoint Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service Commission with a term to expire December
31, 2019.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Construction of an Outdoor Skate
Park - Resolution No. 17-016
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2017
It was noted that new equipment to replace the existing skate park has been included in the
Capital Improvement Plan. Operations and Recreation will be collaborating with
Engineering on this project at Carpenter Park to construct an underground stormwater
retention system underneath the skate park. Construction would occur in 2017, and the next
step in the process is to solicit bids from skate park vendors.
Councilmember Mavity commented that the old skate park was located at the site of the
new ROC, so a new skate park location had to be found. Staff has had robust conversation
with residents, and this topic has also come up at another recent council meeting.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the bids being discussed this evening are for the skate
park alone or for the stormwater management, as well. Mr. Heiser stated the bid being
considered tonight is strictly for the construction of the skate park and not for the
stormwater improvement.
Councilmember Mavity asked how progress will be made to address stormwater in the
area. Does the skate park in any way impact the stormwater plan, and if so, how? She added
the Friends of Bass Lake are very interested in this issue, as well. Ms. Heiser noted staff
will be coming to council with the proposed Carpenter Park stormwater project in February
and will be asking for approval at that time. She added that the request before the council
is about the skate park design. She continued, staff has been talking to Minnehaha Creek
Watershed on both the skate park and the proposed stormwater project. She added that the
skate park can move forward without the stormwater project; however, it will require
additional work for the skate park for drainage and site work. Ms. Heiser again noted the
resolution for this evening is only in regard to the construction of the skate park.
Mr. Harmening added if it is determined by council at the February meeting to move
forward with the Carpenter Park stormwater portion of the project, mitigation for the skate
park will be provided, along with a base that the park can be built upon. He noted that if
the council does not move ahead on the stormwater project, there will be additional costs
for the skate park later. There will also be a need for some soil corrections and stormwater
mitigation, but this would be done separately.
Mayor Spano pointed out there is $200,000 in city funds and $100,000 from Hennepin
County for the youth sports grant that will assist with this project, and he thanked both for
their support.
Councilmember Brausen commented that this project is needed in the community, and
since it will be partially funded by a $100,000 grant from Hennepin County, it makes sense
to move it forward for bids. He stated that he will support the project. Councilmember
Brausen also noted the city does continue to look at preservation of the Bass Lake
Watershed. An example is tonight’s discussion about pavement area #4 considered
improvements, including minimizing the width of some streets and cutting down
impervious surface by 4.4%. He stated this will all have a positive effect on the watershed.
The council continues to work on this issue.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 17-016, Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Construction of an
Outdoor Skate Park.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent).
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2017
9. Communications
Mayor Spano noted he will be available to meet with the public this coming Saturday, January 21,
at the Auto Surf Café, located at 5608 Excelsior.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Minutes: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 23, 2017
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, and Thom Miller.
Councilmember absent: Susan Sanger.
Human Rights Commissioners present: Katherine Arnold (via video conference), Greg Gidden,
Michelle Kornblit, Margaret Rog, and Will Poulter.
Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee Members present: Jocelyn McQuirter, Sandy Johnson, Justin
Grays, Angie Martinez Grande.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), JCPP Coordinator (Ms. Martens), Community
Liaison (Ms. Freedman), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Harcey), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources
Director (Ms. Deno), Communications and Marketing Manager (Ms. Larson), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Staple).
Guest: Gordon Goodwin, Center for Social Inclusion.
1. Joint Meeting with the Human Rights Commission and the Multi-Cultural Advisory
Committee
Mayor Spano explained the primary purpose of the discussion is to allow members of the Human
Rights Commission (HRC) and Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee (MAC) to share thoughts and
provide input regarding their relationship with the City Council.
Gordon Goodwin, Center for Social Inclusion, provided background information on his career
experience and the logistics for the meeting. He reviewed the intent for the meeting and the
purpose of the groups being able to provide input to the City Council on their roles and how they
would like those roles to be received by the City Council. He began with a group exercise asking
attendees to think about ground rules for the discussion, specifically actions that would be
beneficial for productive conflict resolution. He asked the attendees to share their input with one
member at their table and then with their table as a whole. He then asked each table to provide one
item or behavior that they feel would be beneficial or would not be beneficial for the discussion.
He reviewed the steps that brought the groups to the meeting tonight. He asked what the groups
would like to have seen happen at the meeting in November.
Committee Member Johnson stated that she was not at the meeting but her expectation was that
there was going to be a dialogue. She stated that it was a surprise to hear that a document was
going to be created. She stated that it was her impression that some people did not feel welcome
at the meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
Committee Member Grande stated that the initial meeting began with a report from the city, and
she expected that the second meeting would provide more of a directive of what would be expected
from the groups. She stated that it was also mentioned that the groups were supposed to be creating
reports, which was a surprise to them. She felt that the dialogue that occurred was stifled and
blocked. She stated that it was unclear why the groups were invited to the meeting or what the
roles would be.
Commissioner Rog stated that for her, it was not the meeting per se, but the feeling that they took
away from the meeting. She stated that after the meeting, the shared feeling was that there was
surprising lack of interest from hearing the contributions of the people who attended the meeting.
She agreed that the meeting was an odd setup, as there was not enough space. She stated that if
people are asked to take time out of their schedule to attend, it is frustrating when their input is not
valued. She thought that there was pushback from the council regarding membership on the Vision
Committee and towards the suggestion for diversifying the City Council.
Committee Member Grande stated that she attended the meeting with the intention of better
understanding the role of the MAC.
Mr. Goodwin asked how people feel in regard to the relationship between the three groups.
Commissioner Kornblit referenced an earlier meeting that she attended where the racial equity
training was explained and that her expectation for the follow-up meeting in November was to
hear more about how the groups would assist the city and be involved in the process. She stated
that the groups heard that a more formal report was requested and that a rubber stamp on the item
would be asked for rather than receiving actual input. She explained that based upon the council’s
reactions, the input was not being heard at the meeting, or the responses provided were not received
well by the council.
Committee Member McQuirter stated that when initiatives are shared in that manner it seems like
voices are not being heard. She stated that MAC is diverse, and she felt that the group was not
asked for input.
Committee Member Johnson stated that it is more than just being at the table and being heard. It
is being included.
Mr. Goodwin noted that the bylaws for the groups were included in the packet for this meeting.
He asked where the city stands in terms of this effort.
Commissioner Gidden noted that the intent for the meeting was for the city to share the initiative
regarding race equity as it was being developed.
Committee Member Grande stated that it was her impression that the council would be asking for
input from the groups and it would be determined how the groups could participate.
Commissioner Arnold stated that it was her understanding that the city would be expanding the
training so that the HRC and MAC could be involved in the initiative.
Mr. Goodwin explained the process the city is following in this initiative with the work starting
with GARE. This is in the beginning stages and work has not been done at this time to outreach.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
The focus has been normalizing internal conversations and understanding with staff, then into
organizing and operations. He asked if there was mention of a plan.
Committee Member Grande stated that there was not a plan mentioned, but at the second meeting
there was a plan that was shared, and it felt like the groups were simply part of a check-off list that
they had met with the groups. She asked the expectations of MAC so that the group could decide
if they would like to participate.
Mr. Harmening stated that while staff has an opinion on the roles of each group, it would be the
decision of the City Council. He added that the normalizing work that has been done was internal,
and that the plan was further related to internal aspects. He added that the next steps would include
rolling it out to the community and input and direction is needed on this. He stated that his
interpretation from the council is that they would like the HRC and MAC to be involved in the
community dialogue.
Mr. Goodwin stated that it sounds like the groups are intended to be involved in the larger
community dialogue. He explained that the process would be to review the internal policies to
ensure that there is an understanding of racial equity. He stated that the community engagement
piece would address how the message goes out to the community. He asked if there are more items
outside of their roles for which the groups would like clarification.
Commissioner Kornblit stated that she would like more clarification on the expectations and role
of the HRC. She stated that in regard to the race equity topic, it appeared that the groups were
brought in to check off a box and were not given sufficient time to discuss the topic and provide
input.
Commissioner Rog stated that in regard to body cameras, the HRC had a lot of good information
but were not clear on how that information should be shared with the City Council. She suggested
that perhaps a more standard protocol should be developed for commissions to provide information
to council.
Commissioner Arnold stated that one of the issues is timing, as the groups are often brought in too
late to provide meaningful input in the process, which does not seem productive or helpful. She
stated that perhaps the groups could be brought into the discussions earlier.
Mr. Goodwin stated that perhaps a job description would be helpful.
Commissioner Gidden agreed that the timing contributes to the “rubber stamp” feeling, as the
commissioners are brought in, but there is not sufficient time for them to provide input. Therefore
it seems that they are not able to assist the process in a meaningful way.
The group took a short recess at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Goodwin asked if there were other elements that caused misunderstanding between the groups
and what could help.
Commissioner Rog stated that she is interested in racial equity issues and feels that the HRC has
the ability to build momentum for change in the community. She stated that there is a question of
whether the city is ready for the change in racial equity that the HRC would like to spark. She
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
stated that if the city is not ready for it, she would like to know that because it is frustrating to feel
that their input and the time they spend does not matter.
Mr. Goodwin clarified that the HRC is wondering if it is helpful for that group to hold public
forums and meetings to spark conversation on the issue or whether they are acting too far ahead
of schedule. He asked the council if they have had conversations regarding what the council relies
on the HRC for and what the roles of the HRC and MAC will be for the racial equity initiative. He
asked if there is an understanding of how the HRC and MAC can help the council.
Mayor Spano replied that he is unsure that the council has gotten to that level of specificity in this
topic. He stated that in regard to the body cams, the essence was for the HRC and MAC to discuss
the topic and gauge the level of community interest in the PD using that type of equipment. He
said that he cannot speak for the whole council. He added that when this work began about one
year ago there was a discussion of whether the race equity talks should occur externally or
internally, and they ultimately decided to start internally with staff to ensure that staff understood
the “why.” He noted that there is interest in this topic and that is why this process began and
continues. He stated that there is not a specific plan for HRC and MAC in the race equity initiative
as that conversation has not yet occurred with the council members. He stated that it feels like
somewhere the lines of communication failed. He added that the intent he had was that the council,
the HRC and the MAC could share their input and expertise to develop next steps. He stated that
in the most recent report from staff, there is no plan for public input yet as the council would like
to have the discussions with the HRC and MAC first.
Councilmember Brausen stated that he has been involved faith based efforts toward racial equity
issues for the past 15 years. He stated that the city recognizes that it is an important issue and
realizes that the city first needs to get their own “house in order” before reaching further out to the
community at large. He stated that some staff members have attended the training; some are still
completing the process; and the council is still learning. He noted that the intention of the
November meeting was for staff to provide an update on the process so far. He stated that the
council cares passionately about this issue and is counting on the input of the other groups to help.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the council has begun asking for boards and commissions
annual reports on what they have done in the past year and their plan for the future, which creates
a more formal dialogue to ensure that the council and the commissions are all on the same paths
to reach the same goals. She said that in regard to the “rubber stamp” feeling, the council is deeply
committed to race equity, but this is the very beginning of a multi-decade initiative. She stated that
the HRC coffee and culture discussions have been wonderful in setting the tone. She added that
while she is not clear where this is headed, she is happy that the process is beginning, and it appears
that everyone wants to be involved. She noted that in regard to the body camera topic, the council’s
decision was to agree to move forward throughout the next two years to make a decision. She
stated that even though it may feel like the HRC and MAC were brought into the discussion late
that is not necessarily the case as a decision is not always made immediately.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that before the council makes a vote, he asks on camera for the
recommendation of the involved commission and takes those recommendations very seriously
before he votes. He felt that it is important for the HRC and MAC members to know that their
input is valued and important. He stated that he was a member of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission prior to being a councilmember, and he explained many councilmembers
have previously been commission members. He apologized for the miscommunication on the
intent of the November meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
Mr. Goodwin asked where the groups would go from here. He stated that staff has mentioned that
the community engagement piece has not yet been fleshed out. He asked if there is an orientation
that the commission members receive to clarify their role and how they work with the council.
Commissioner Arnold stated that she did not receive any orientation prior to her appointment and
that a lot of what happens on the commission is institutional knowledge. She stated that the items
the commission agenda has varied widely over the years and has focused on some items that have
been relatively isolated. She stated that as the purview of the commission has turned, they would
like to see more interaction with the council.
Mr. Goodwin acknowledged that the HRC has been working independently and stated that the
question now would be how the three groups could work together to focus on the message of racial
equity; what could be done to support the message; and how responses received from the public
can be communicated to share the information between the groups. He stated that people are often
afraid of the topic of race, so normalizing the discussion will not be easy. He stated that it will take
time to change because momentum has been built up from the methods that have been followed
for years.
Commissioner Rog stated that people approach her with questions they have or things they would
like to change, and she is unable to answer most of their questions as she is newer to the
commission. She stated that it would be helpful to know how to manage the expectations of
community members who approach the commissioners and the role that they play as a conduit.
Commissioner Kornblit asked for clarification on the communication the commission members
should or should not be sharing with the public.
Commissioner Rog asked how the commission should be answering some questions as to what the
HRC can do to help in certain matters.
Councilmember Mavity that from her perspective, she views staff as the experts, and the
commissions are an interface with the community and are an “ear to the ground” to be able to bring
public input into the discussion. She stated that the council then is the end on the policy. She stated
that the commissions bring forward questions that need to be addressed or topics that arise from
the community. Staff then can bring information to the council to address those questions. The
council then considers it all and makes the decision.
Mayor Spano stated that another challenge the council faces is that it seems in the last three years
the nature of community engagement around local public policy is much higher than it has been.
He stated that while some commissions have specific duties, other commissions do not have that
clearly defined mission. Therefore, the public engagement piece has not yet been developed. He
stated that the council is still sorting and sifting through the options for public engagement. He
believes that the council has not gone deeply into what they would like each of the boards and
commissions to do, and the process is still being developed.
Councilmember Mavity stated that this is a good challenge as they are going to ask the boards,
commissions, and committees to be more active.
Commissioner Gidden stated that his interpretation from the public is that the HRC is actively
involved and watching the topics that arise around the community. He stated that perhaps the city
should be responsive to that as people are expecting more from the HRC.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
Mr. Goodwin stated that it feels like this is a reinvention moment for the HRC as they previously
worked independently and now are going to be working in a coordinated manner. He stated that
perhaps a smaller work group be developed with a few members from each of the three groups to
determine some criteria to define how they can best work together. He stated that there may be
some specific areas that arise where community input can be helpful and where the HRC or MAC
rather than staff could host a community dialogue.
Committee Member Johnson agreed that the solution is not going to be found tonight, and therefore
would support the formation of a working group. She stated that she has attended the coffee and
culture events hosted by the HRC and commended the commissioners for their more focused
meetings with great dialogue and robust attendance. She stated that she hopes they can continue
to hold these events.
Commissioner Arnold stated that the next event is a film screening of a Netflix documentary, and
after the movie there will be a dialogue. She stated that the HRC intends to have more coffee and
culture chats but have not set dates in stone.
Committee Member Johnson stated that this is a great start, and the work group could continue to
build upon it.
Councilmember Miller stated that this initiative is not just between the HRC and the MAC. He
stated that the council has recently reviewed a robust plan on how the City of Edina communicates
with their Boards and Commissions, and they determined that they would like to simplify and
streamline the process. He added that the council is doing this across the board to determine the
best method for working with all the boards and commissions and not just these two groups.
Mr. Goodwin stated that if the work group was created, it could be a model for the other boards
and commissions.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the council wants to ensure that as they do this, it is workable
for the city as a whole and not a pilot for just these two groups.
Mr. Goodwin asked the group to think about what they are leaving this meeting with and what
they are willing to do.
Mayor Spano stated that he feels that everyone needs time to process all of this. He stated that the
idea of a working group would need to have a clear mission and deadline but believes that the
council needs to have time to process all this input. He stated that the council needs to consider
the implications that this could have on the other boards and commissions, as not all groups operate
in the same manner and have the same level of community engagement. He stated that they have
been attempting to find a plan of action to better work with all the boards and commissions. He
stated that the council could discuss the topic prior to their next council meeting.
Mr. Goodwin asked the attendees to think about something they feel more resolved or hopeful
about and something they would like to see as a next step.
Commissioner Arnold stated that she is hopeful because it seems that the HRC and MAC have the
ability to be involved in the racial equity work as it moves forward. She stated that she hopes that
the council will be able to propose a manner in which the groups can work with the council to
provide a clear message.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
Committee Member McQuirter stated that she is hopeful that the commitment is there, and
everyone is working together. She resolved to provide intentional input when included.
Committee Member Grays stated that he is hopeful that everyone will be able to work together
towards the common goal and is resolved to determine his conduit role as a committee member.
Committee Member Johnson stated that she is hopeful that positive momentum has been built
tonight. She is resolved to support the work as much as she can going forward. She believes the
answer would be a smaller working group.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that he is hopeful to build stronger relationships and is resolved
to provide the clarity that has been mentioned and to build the path to race equity cooperatively to
create the best end product.
Councilmember Hallfin was hopeful that the HRC and MAC members understand that the council
values their efforts and is resolved to keep moving forward to make St. Louis Park a great place to
live and work.
Councilmember Miller stated that the group of people here tonight are very passionate and
articulate on the topic, and he is proud to see that level of involvement. He stated that he would
love to understand the work preference of the members of the HRC and MAC and how they would
like to work with the council.
Commissioner Rog agreed with the comments of Councilmember Miller to ask the groups to think
about the input they would like to provide and to propose that to the council. She stated that perhaps
the HRC can come up with their own recommendation for the process to bring to the city council.
She stated that this past week she attended the Neighborhood Leaders Forum, and they were
presented with the community engagement process of the visioning process. She felt that the city
is missing opportunities to do things differently now and offered to meet with the council to
provide specific suggestions on how the city can intentionally be different through the visioning
process.
Commissioner Poulter stated that he is hopeful in having more involvement between all three
bodies present tonight. He resolved to continue to work closely with the other groups to bridge the
communication gap in order to prevent the feeling of isolation. He agreed that perhaps they can
target more issues and bring about more change.
Commissioner Kornblit noted that she was hopeful that it seemed that everyone was on the same
page.
Councilmember Brausen stated that he is hopeful that they will continue to build relationships, and
he is resolved to continue to work through the tension.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she is hopeful because this is the most active group of people
who have been involved on the HRC and MAC. She believes that there are enormous opportunities
for engagement. She stated that the clarity of roles is important and on items they are unsure of to
state they are unsure.
Mayor Spano stated that he is hopeful because there is tremendous energy in this room, and he is
resolved to figure out how to fit all those moving pieces together. He added that everyone has
different roles that will work together to serve the larger purpose. He noted that a certain
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2017
percentage of the population agrees with the importance of race equity; a certain percentage of the
population will never agree on the topic; and then there is a group in the middle. He stated that the
group in the middle should be focused on.
Mr. Goodwin stated that there is no shortage of passion in this room for doing this work and
acknowledged that there are a lot of moving parts and a fair amount of work to be done, as well
as roles that need to be defined. He stated that good intentions are one thing but execution is the
key.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
2. Fourth Quarter Investment Report (October – December 2016)
3. Update Regarding 2544 Highway 100 S. (Lutheran Church of the Reformation Site)
4. Vision St. Louis Park Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of City Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the
period of December 24, 2016 through January 27, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to approve City disbursements in
accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
SUMMARY: The Finance Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the City Council
to review and approve. The attached reports show both City disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the City’s Charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: City Disbursements
Prepared by: Kari Mahan, Accounting Clerk
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
820.01 EARL ANDERSEN INC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
820.01
400.00 ROBERT BEALKE INDUSTRIES HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.00PLAYGROUNDSOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
800.00
919.50A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
919.50
88.56ABERNATHY, LISA ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
88.56
2,425.00ABRA MN ST LOUIS PARK UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
2,425.00
844.50ACCURATE RADAR SPECIALTIES POLICE G & A REPAIRS
844.50
316.44ACME TOOLS FABRICATION SMALL TOOLS
316.44
116.25ACTION FLEET INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
116.25
41,652.93ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
47,692.84SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
89,345.77
175.00AIM ELECTRONICS REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
175.00
24.00ALBRECHT, MARY POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
176.65PROSECUTIONOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.65
4,195.00ALL AMERICAN ARENA PRODUCTS PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,195.00
481.00ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 1
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
481.00
486.99ALL STAR SPORTS BASKETBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES
486.99
1,500.00ALLDATAVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,500.00
452.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
452.00
3,517.00AMEE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,517.00
1,131.00AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT SOIL TESTING SERVICES
1,131.00
585.00AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
585.00
270.00APACOMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
270.00
174.00APPLE INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
174.00
26.82AQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
26.82
15.00ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION NATURAL RESOURCES G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
15.00
73.55ARCGIS SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
73.55
4,788.00ARCHIVE SOCIAL INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,788.00
341.00ASCAPPERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
341.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 2
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,895.17ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS
279.45OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING
2,174.62
400.00ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA BUILDING OFFICI INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
400.00
73.84AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
73.84
250.00ATOMPOLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
500.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
750.00
49.93ATOMIC RECYCLING FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
49.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
49.94WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
49.94VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
199.75
34.90AUTO PLUS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
34.90
2,370.27AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,370.27
31,468.14AVI SYSTEMS COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
31,468.14
1,564.24AVOLVE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,564.24
3,274.97BADGER METER INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,274.97
100.00BALOW BLAINE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
100.00
84.78BARKER, EMILY SOLID WASTE G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
84.78
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 3
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
4,670.64BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,670.64
54.96BATTERIES + BULBS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
89.99REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
144.95
37,833.27BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
25.89REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,899.60ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
756.88ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
41,515.64
5,000.00BELAIR SITEWORK SERVICE ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
5,000.00
243.67BERSCHEID, GARY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
243.67
88.00BETHKE, DAVID INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
88.00
250.00BG CONSULTING INC FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
450.00ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
425.00BLUE CARD-HENNEPIN CTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN OPERATIONS TRAINING
425.00
342.00BMIREC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES
342.00
473.45BOHN WELDING INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
473.45
163.60BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
163.60
180.00BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
180.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 4
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
55.35BROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
55.35
52.50BUDGET SIGN & GRAPHICS POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
52.50
690.00BUNKER PARK STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
690.00
510.00BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
510.00
75.00BURESH JASON INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
54.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
129.00
20.45BUSINESS ESSENTIALS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
20.45
500.00CALENDINE, LAYNE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
500.00
741.00CALHOUN TOWERS LLC OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
741.00
1,196.00CALIBRE PRESS POLICE G & A TRAINING
1,196.00
16.99CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
179.97WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
32.75WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
229.71
2,238.00CAR WASH PARTNERS PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,238.00
2,373.71CARLSON, AURTHUR J EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
2,373.71
5,413.46CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,413.46
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 5
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
14.67CEDAR SMALL ENGINE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
2,899.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
847.06PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,760.73
900.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,840.00CES RESID ENERGY CONSERVATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,740.00
10,000.00CENTER FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION INC GENERAL FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,000.00
3,820.99CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
3,694.99WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
195.93REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
109.55SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
155.88SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
1,031.76PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
162.79WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
188.65NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
9,360.54
3,126.48CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
3,960.83REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS
7,087.31
10,750.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT
10,750.00
6,597.65CENTURY FENCE COMPANY STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
15.45CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
694.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
7,307.10
261.60CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
261.60
312.00CHINOOK BOOK SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
312.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 6
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,580.00CI UTILITIES TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,580.00
200.57CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
77.44FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,872.33WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
551.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,701.94
152.79CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
120.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
166.12ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
31.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
331.58ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
47.89HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.54HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
60.53HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
469.82HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
454.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
266.58HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
13.98HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
131.99COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
195.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
20.17IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
32.11IT G & A TRAINING
10.00IT G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
188.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
485.40FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
198.49FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
801.45POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
159.94POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
15.13POLICE G & A POSTAGE
11.53POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,050.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
6.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
20.45POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
412.50ERUMEETING EXPENSE
258.00JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP GENERAL SUPPLIES
492.27OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
28.23OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 7
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,111.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
650.00OPERATIONSTRAINING
2,391.08OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
238.83OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
192.65INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
108.79ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
95.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
1.70ENGINEERING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
44.80SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
964.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
430.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
98.15TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.94OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
101.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
265.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
432.90SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
495.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
111.09ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.00ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
609.86TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,164.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
467.55ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
981.92SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
327.95HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.80WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
217.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
166.58NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
358.00WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
87.26WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
73.94REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
254.03REC CENTER BUILDING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
244.81ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.37ARENA MAINTENANCE MEETING EXPENSE
89.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
21,754.31
301.83CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATIONS REPAIRS
301.83
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 8
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
14,715.66COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
14,715.66
88.90COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
22.98OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
493.25WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15.27REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
620.40
6,537.75COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP SUB HENN EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,537.75
43,161.83COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
43,161.83
7,215.78CONCRETE IDEA INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
3,645.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,860.78
3,632.22CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSUR
3,632.22
526.86CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
526.86
7,226.70CORNERHOUSEPOLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,226.70
664.76CORPORATE MECHANICAL REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
664.76
10,530.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,530.00
361.15CREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC - DARE DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
361.15
401.48CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
401.48
13.70CROWN MARKING INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 9
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
13.70
371.37CUB FOODS POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
371.37
100.00CUMMINS NPOWER LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
4,488.72FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,588.72
159.73CUSTOM HOSE TECH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
159.73
879.75CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD #5 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
879.75
1,000.00DAKOTA CO TECH COLLEGE TRAINING TRAINING
1,800.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
200.00TRAININGTRAINING
3,000.00
2,766.14DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
245.78REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
4,808.84REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER
7,820.76
272.70DAR-A-CON ENTERPRISES VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
272.70
1,070.76DELEGARD TOOL CO WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
62.34VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
1,133.10
7,956.00DEMARS SIGNS INC REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
7,956.00
9,965.90DEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENT
9,965.90
2,971.16DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
2,971.16
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 10
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
208.26DESIGNER SIGN SYSTEMS RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES
208.26
1,359.01DISCOUNT STEEL INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,359.01
9,800.00DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,554.82REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
11,354.82
11,050.20DLT SOLUTIONS INC CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S PREPAID EXPENSES
11,050.20
579.80DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,929.43COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
2,867.90COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
7,377.13
2,750.00DUNN RICHARD J HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,750.00
262.13ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
2,616.00SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
2,878.13
48.75EDINA BANTAM AA ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE RENT REVENUE
48.75
150.00EDINA PEEWEE B1 WHITE ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE RENT REVENUE
150.00
95.00EDINA SQUIRT C GREEN ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE RENT REVENUE
95.00
1,159.91EGAN COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,159.91
1,375.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ESCROWS PLACE
1,182.50FINANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,557.50
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 11
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
70.20EISOLD, JASON ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
70.20
9,903.30ELECTRIC PUMP INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
9,903.30
291.13EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
291.13
401.27EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
401.27
300.00EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
300.00
4,144.56ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT
4,144.56
1,170.00ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,170.00
228.00EPIC SECURITY PROFESSIONALS INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
228.00
175.00ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
175.00
7,000.00ETHICAL LEADERS IN ACTION LLC OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,000.00
1,760.00EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,760.00
1,784.66FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
45.48VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,830.14
13,189.00FALCON ROAD MAINTENANCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
13,189.00
19.50FASTENAL COMPANY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 12
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
368.02SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
8.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
396.34
85.32FECHNER, MARTY ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
85.32
43.88FEDEXHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
43.88
4.78FEINBERG, GREG WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
27.50FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
32.28
4,694.81-FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
569.45WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
44,311.01WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
40,185.65
198.53FERRELLGASREC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
198.53
58.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
249.00OPERATIONSREPAIRS
307.00
518.47FISCHER MINING LLC SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
518.47
545.00FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
545.00
242.00FLEX COMPENSATION INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
242.00
38.99FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
202.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
550.00REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
790.99
1,500.00FORCE SCIENCE INSTITUTE LTD SUPERVISORY TRAINING
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 13
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,500.00PATROLTRAINING
3,000.00
129.97FORKLIFTS OF MN INC.VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
129.97
284.60FORMS & SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
284.60
2,000.00FOX CREEK PROPERTIES ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,000.00
33.51G & K SERVICES REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
33.51
2,187.50GIGA BAUER CONSULTING LLC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,187.50
65.00GLEASON PRINTING SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
65.00
406.45GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
406.45
381.13GRAINGER INC, WW FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
165.20WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,613.09WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
123.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,283.02
468.72GROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE
468.72
225.00GUNSTAD, MARK GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
1,835.29H & L MESABI GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,835.29
1,475.00HAMLINE UNIVERSITY TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,475.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 14
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
675.00HANSEN, ERIC GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
675.00
3,706.97HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,706.97
550.00HCMC EMS EDUCATION PATROL TRAINING
550.00JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP TRAINING
1,100.00
1,162.00HEALTHPARTNERSHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
24,441.00OPERATIONSHEALTH & WELLNESS
25,603.00
1,363.76HEISER, DEBRA ENGINEERING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
1,363.76
22.63HEMANN, COTY FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
22.63
204.00HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DWI ENFORCEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.00
280.00HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS POLICE POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
280.00
6,971.20HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
6,971.20
72.50HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENT & REAL ESTATE ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
72.50
564.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
2,452.56POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,259.43POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
317.00POLICE G & A LICENSES
2,508.30OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
2,321.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,321.70SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,638.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 15
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
9,271.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
31,654.89
18,494.28HMA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
18,494.28
208.97HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.92ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
191.19ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
37.19SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
80.98DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
525.86WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
42.96UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
74.38PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
99.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
25.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
42.95PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
212.02PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
88.98WOLFE PARK AMPHITHEATER GENERAL SUPPLIES
709.92REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,352.29
108.18HOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
108.18
38.88HOPPE, MARK ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
38.88
341.35HOTSY OF MN BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
341.35
1,600.87HRDLICHKA, CINDY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,600.87
1,587.80I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,587.80
460.00I/O SOLUTIONS INC HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
460.00
300.00IACPPOLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 16
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
300.00
19.00IATNVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
19.00
5,796.00ICCINSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
5,796.00
1,359.00ICMAADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,359.00
2,086.49IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,086.50SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,086.50SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE
73.09SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
2,086.48STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
8,419.06
12.12INDELCOSNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
54.99WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
67.11
187,400.00INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #283 SCHOOL DISTRICT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
187,400.00
2,250.00INNOVYZEWATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,250.00
2,225.64INTEGRA TELECOM IT G & A TELEPHONE
2,225.64
438.45INVER GROVE FORD UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
918.87GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,357.32
1,205.44I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,205.44
525.00ITERIS INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
525.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 17
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
40.00J & F REDDY RENTS COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
40.00
150.00JACK & KITTY PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00
188.55JAVINSKY MARTIN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
188.55
292.86JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
292.86
43.19JERRY'S HARDWARE FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.83PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
175.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
241.27
4,400.00JOBSINMINNEAPOLIS.COM HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
4,400.00
2,621.00JOHN NAGENGAST DOORS, LLC.REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2,621.00
648.00JUDY HARTLEY & ASSOCIATES COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAINING
648.00
503.08KELLER, JASMINE Z EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
503.08
190.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN ESCROWS PLACE
190.00
79.03KESLINS, ULDIS REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
79.03
10,050.00KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,050.00
405.00KIDCREATE STUDIO LITTLE TOT PLAYTIME OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
405.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 18
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
4,381.82KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
4,381.82
62,874.54KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
62,874.54
225.00KING, RYAN BROOMBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
116.96KLATT WILLIAM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
116.96
30,883.61KOENIG & SONS EQUIPMENT INC SOLID WASTE G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
30,883.61
619.75KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
619.75
44.15LAKES GAS CO PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
63.41WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
29.42PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
136.98
245.22LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
245.22
587.32LARSON, JH CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
256.90WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
844.22
2,674.05LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
2,674.05
130.00LAWSON PRODUCTS INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
37.00GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
167.00
79,206.50LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S PREPAID EXPENSES
39,603.25EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
1,000.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
119,809.75
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 19
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
5,767.20LHB INC ESCROWS PLACE
5,767.20
1,347.64LIBERTY ENVELOPE COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,347.64
700.00LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
240.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
940.00
36,250.00LIFE SUPPORT INNOVATIONS EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
36,250.00
300.00LISEC, TOM JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP TRAINING
300.00
120.00LITIN PAPER, PACKAGING & CONVERTING ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.62FINANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
300.92WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
567.54
339.63LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
278.52UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
618.15
75.50LOCKGUARD INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
191.50REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
267.00
2,533.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
2,533.00
2,229.43LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,229.43
68,532.09LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
29,142.69TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
97,674.78
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 20
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
876.03MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
15,399.70SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
9,125.63UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
25,401.36
1,840.00MACTAFRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,840.00
240.00MAGCCOMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
240.00
54.00MAIR, KATHERINE W.INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
54.00
45.00MAMAADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
45.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00
3,415.52MANAGED SERVICES INC WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
3,415.52
23,923.00MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
23,923.00
655.52MARTENS, AFTON JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP GENERAL SUPPLIES
65.12JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP MEETING EXPENSE
720.64
1,801.75MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,801.75
30.19MCCONNELL, BECKY WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
30.19
200.30MCKELVEY KIM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
200.30
2,000.00MEIER, DWAYNE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,000.00
83.29MENARDSDAMAGE REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 21
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
8.58WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
45.88PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
300.75WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
64.54HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
67.54REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
589.20REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,159.78
127.98MERKLEY, SCOTT PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
127.98
400.00METRO CHIEF FIRE OFFICERS ASSN OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
400.00
536.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
536.00
2,949.59METROPOLITAN COMPOUNDS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,949.59
1,300.00METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SEWER UTILITY G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
355,300.85OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
356,600.85
39.99MICRO CENTER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.99
300.87MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
300.87
3,579.33MILL CITY HARDSCAPE STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
1,904.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5,483.33
50.00MILLER BRYAN & AMY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00
1.00MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL PLUMBING & HEATIN INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
55.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
56.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 22
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
398.70MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
398.70
223.37MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
223.37
176.27MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
176.27
270.00MINNESOTA BOARD OF P.O.S.T PATROL LICENSES
270.00
50.00MINNESOTA CHAPTER IAAI OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
50.00
147.66MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
147.66
45.00MINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASSN COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
45.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00
960.00MINNESOTA JUVENILE OFFICER ASSOC.POLICE G & A TRAINING
960.00
26,130.00MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
26,130.00
125.00MINNESOTA PARK AND SPORTSTURF MANAGERS PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
25.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A TRAINING
150.00
559.13MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
559.13
3,900.00MINNESOTA PUMP WORKS SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,900.00
39.00MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
39.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 23
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
285.00MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
95.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A TRAINING
380.00
583.43MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
583.43
404.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
404.00
240.00MINVALCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
240.00
613.15M-K GRAPHICS FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
613.15
152,403.52MMP HS OPCO CSM TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT
152,403.52
2,411.00MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
2,411.00
327.04MN EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
327.04
11,453.40MOTOROLAE-911 PROGRAM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
69,171.56POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
80,624.96
1,705.00MRPAORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
180.00ENTERPRISE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,065.00
69.88-MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
739.19VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
440.44GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
1,109.75
300.00MSSAPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 24
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
300.00
1,190.07MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,190.07
499.00NAFA INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
499.00
1,810.27NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
59.99DWI ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
782.86VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,653.12
70.74NATHANSON, BRIDGET ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
70.74
3,509.93NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,509.93
3,813.00NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
3,813.00
5,225.00NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,225.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,225.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,750.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,325.00SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
19,750.00
379.40ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
379.40
225.00NGUYEN ARCHITECTS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
149.95NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
129.95INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
279.90
835.00NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
835.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 25
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
7,875.00NORTHEAST TREE INC TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,875.00
562.14NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
562.14
600.00OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
90.21OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
336.01HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
500.72COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
20.35COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
16.05FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
279.00GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
293.35POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
81.16JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP OFFICE SUPPLIES
330.89INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
53.78PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.01HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
61.18WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
51.54ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.98ORGANIZED REC G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
286.50WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2,469.73
3,588.24OFFICE TEAM COMM & MARKETING G & A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
3,588.24
361.50OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
407.86WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
251.34GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,020.70
125.00OLSON MARY INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
125.00
230.08OMAHA PAPER COMPANY INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,251.50REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,481.58
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 26
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
11,470.00OMNI CONTRACTING INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,470.00
53.00ON SITE SANITATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
101.00FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.50ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
361.00
9.49O'REILLY AUTO PARTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
9.49
2,500.00OSTVIG TREE INC TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,400.00TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
6,900.00
232.71OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
232.71
863.75PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
863.75
1,697.14PALMEN LISA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
1,697.14
60.35PARK CHRYSLER JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
60.35
24,596.57-PARK CONSTRUCTION CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
491,931.31CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
467,334.74
300.00PARKTACULARSPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
300.00
1,000.00PARKWAY 25 LLC ESCROWS GENERAL
1,000.00
1,900.74PARSONS ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,900.74
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 27
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
5,104.50PEARSON BROTHERS INC SWEEPING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,104.50
2,397.50PERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,397.50
14.66PETTY CASH ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
7.85HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.72HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
5.70HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
.21COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
53.03COMM & MARKETING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
75.00IT G & A TRAINING
40.00IT G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
51.84IT G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
9.40POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
7.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
10.80FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
8.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
13.36INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
10.50ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
50.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
21.08PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT PARTS
19.90PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A POSTAGE
10.25PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LICENSES
16.53HOUSING REHAB G & A MEETING EXPENSE
23.54CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
14.08WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.76WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4.99WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
13.00WATER UTILITY G&A MEETING EXPENSE
19.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
13.97SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
20.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
3.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.75VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
608.88
69.02PETTY CASH - WWNC WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.14WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 28
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
91.16
3,427.75PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
3,427.75
319.47PHIMISTER, MEGHAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
319.47
54.00PINC, SHANNON ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
54.00
1,578.00PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,578.00
541.62POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
541.62
131.32POPP.COM INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
131.32
59.98PRACTICAL SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
59.98
347.19PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
364.15WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
364.17SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
364.16STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
1,439.67
42.99PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
42.99
220.00PRINTERS SERVICE INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
220.00
20,000.00PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING PERSPECTIVES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20,000.00
260.00PWF SOLUTIONS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
260.00
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 29
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,217.14QUEST ENGINEERING INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,217.14
42.19QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
42.19
514.25R & R SPECIALTIES ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
219.85ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
734.10
2,854.43RANDY'S SANITATION INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,509.82REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,364.25
16.43REALWHEELS RWC INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16.43
141.47REGENCY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
141.47
3,125.00REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
490.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
735.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
4,350.00
445.00REID & ASSOCIATES, JOHN E PATROL TRAINING
445.00
117.77REUVERS, TERRY PROSECUTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
117.77
3,000.00RICHARD COFFEY UNLIMITED OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000.00
4,799.99RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,799.99
417.00ROBERT B HILL CO GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
417.00
600.00ROSS LANCE OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 30
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
600.00
285.00ROTARY CLUB OF SLP ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
160.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
535.00
6,483.76RSP ARCHITECTS LTD PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,483.76
1,700.00RTVISION INC ENGINEERING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,700.00
29.96SAM'S CLUB POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.64NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSE
141.28WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
197.48CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
74.78BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
104.78WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
104.37WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
751.04HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
100.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER
1,563.33
295.00SARAH GRACE PHOTOGRAPHY COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
295.00
5,316.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
5,316.00
687.47SCAN AIR FILTER INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
687.47
78.84SCHOMER, KELLEY ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
78.84
7,919.14SEARLE, HUGO OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
7,919.14
12,396.67SEHSTREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12,396.67
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 31
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
4.97SERVEY PLUMBING INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
4.97
793.00SESACREC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES
793.00
6,120.00SHAWN, JACK BASKETBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,120.00
463.04SHERWIN WILLIAMS REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
463.04
18,000.00SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
18,000.00
13.92SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12.95FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
69.61POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13.92INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12.65ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
123.05
1,708.40SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
138.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,094.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE
2,940.40
1,013.65SIMPLEX GRINNELL FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,013.65
88.00SKALLET, DAVID INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
88.00
1,379.10SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,379.10
275.18SMITH, LAURA HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
275.18
20.33SMITH, TIM OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 32
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
20.33
1,755.78SPRINTIT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS
3,550.05CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,305.83
18.46SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
356.62FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.85WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
87.76PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
512.69
1,460.98SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC ESCROWS GENERAL
1,460.98
102,000.51ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB
102,000.51
70.00ST LOUIS PARK CRIME PREVENTION FUND GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
70.00
3,000.00ST LOUIS PARK POLICE EXPLORERS POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,000.00
100.00ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
100.00
165.81ST PAUL CITY OF PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
165.81
37.90STAR TRIBUNE SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
37.90
1,094.81STEVENS ENGINEERS INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,094.81
619.18STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
619.18
1,687.50STRATEGIC INSIGHTS CO TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,687.50
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 33
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
13,920.97STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
359.96POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
14,280.93
291.05SUMMIT COMPANIES PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
291.05
11,617.99SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,617.99
1,315.38SUNBELT RENTALS INC RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,315.38
125.00SUSAPUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
375.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
125.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
625.00
1,905.45SWANSON, MITCH EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,905.45
2,304.26SYSKO KENNETH EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
2,304.26
33.78TANIS PETER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
33.78
103.20TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.20
233.86TERMINIX INT REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
233.86
10.00TEXA TONKA TAILORING OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00
4,572.00THE CREATIVE GROUP COMM & MARKETING G & A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
4,572.00
120.00THE SIGN PRODUCERS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 34
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
120.00
242.33THOMPSON, LINDSEY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
242.33
263.25THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
263.25
864.41THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
864.41
500.00TIGER OAK MEDIA COMM & MARKETING G & A ADVERTISING
500.00
1,684.00TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,684.00
8,675.98TKDAWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,675.98
6,160.93TOWMASTERGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
6,160.93
10,590.00TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
44,205.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
54,795.00
3,124.16TRANSPORT GRAPHICS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
3,124.16
9,000.00TREE TRUST UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
9,000.00
113.52TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
130.48UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
244.00
5,897.50TWIN CITY FIREPLACE PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
121.73REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
6,019.23
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 35
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
135.00TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
135.00
24,791.26TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,359.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
32,150.26
75.00TWIN CITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
75.00
360.00UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
360.00
1,324.12UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,755.13SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6,768.22PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
9,847.47
106.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY
106.00
150.00UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00
414.00USA BLUE BOOK SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
414.00
72,998.61VALLEY-RICH CO INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
72,998.61
748.74VAN PAPER COMPANY WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
748.74
18.90VAUGHAN, JIM NATURAL RESOURCES G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
18.90
100.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
100.00
50.04VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
11,758.06CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 36
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
37Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
70.08CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
11,878.18
2,586.39VERMONT SYSTEMS INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
2,586.39
275.91VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
275.91
11,552.54VISU-SEWER INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
18,642.75CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
30,195.29
300.00VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PETTY
6.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
207.95ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
10.72REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.11ENTERPRISE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
51.40CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
593.18
54.00VOSS, CAROLINE ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
54.00
66.79WALLESTAD AARON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
66.79
510.00WARNING LITES OF MN INC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
510.00
3,121.60WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,121.60
26,362.96-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
199,399.87SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
99,145.34SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
100,266.65SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,083.22UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
374,532.12
1,082.62WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 37
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2LOGIS400V
38Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,082.62
70.00WATKINS, COTY OPERATIONS TRAINING
70.00
142.88WAYTEKVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
142.88
487.50WEIXEL STEVE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
63.18WEST, JASON ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
63.18
25.00WILSORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
25.00
106.18WOLFE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
106.18
75.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
75.00
23,928.50WSB ASSOC INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
23,928.50
15,608.81XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
24.24OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
29,469.66PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
20,995.95WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,120.56REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,307.91SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,544.60STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,408.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
43.25BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
68.85WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
500.71WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
16,912.29REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
97,004.88
355.00YTS COMPANIES LLC TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 38
1/31/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:30:17R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
39Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
1/27/201712/24/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,451.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
2,806.00
222.30ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
222.30
75.00ZEIGLE, PAUL C.GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
2,129.62ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,201.66-GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
927.96
267.94ZIP PRINTING PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
242.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
197.09WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
197.09SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
197.10SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
197.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
242.31PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
230.44NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
151.73REC CENTER BUILDING PRINTING & PUBLISHING
1,923.11
Report Totals 3,566,655.61
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 39
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt the following resolutions imposing civil
penalties for liquor license violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager:
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016, at
Blaze Pizza, 8126 Highway 7
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016, at
Blue Fox Bar & Grill, 5377 16th St. W.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016, at
Crave, 1603 West End Blvd.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016, at
Noodles & Company, 8120 Highway 7
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016 at
Prime Deli, 4224 Minnetonka Blvd.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016, at
Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
Resolution imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on December 27, 2016, at
Westwood Liquors, 2304 Louisiana Ave. So.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council concur with the decision of the City
Manager to impose penalties for liquor license violations occurring on December 27, 2016, at these
6 establishments in St. Louis Park? If the City Council disagrees with the City Manager’s
recommendation, a hearing would need to be scheduled for the licensee to appear before the City
Council for further consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolutions
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Liquor compliance checks were conducted by the St. Louis Park Police
Department on December 27, 2016. Under the direction of a police officer, an underage buyer
attempted to purchase alcoholic beverages at 61 licensed establishments in operation throughout
the city at that time. Seven of the licensed establishments failed the compliance check. Citations
were issued in each case and forwarded to Hennepin County District Court for consideration of
criminal penalties.
The city is responsible for imposing civil penalties. Minnesota Statute 340A.415 limits civil
penalty fees to a maximum of $2,000 for each violation. City Code requires that the presumptive
civil penalties for the violations of selling alcohol to an underage person are as follows:
1st Violation 2nd Violation
within 3 years
3rd Violation
within 3 years
4th Violation
within 3 years
$2,000 $2,000 and
1 day suspension
$2,000 and
3 day suspension Revocation
Administrative Process
Liquor license violators were given three options:
1. Accept the violation and pay the penalty, waiving the right to any further appeal.
2. Appear at an Administrative Hearing with the City Manager.
3. Appeal directly to the City Council at a public meeting.
The establishments and fines set are as follows:
Establishment
Name Address Violation
Date
Number of
Violations
within 3 years
Fine/Penalty
Blaze Pizza 8126 Hwy. 7 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Blue Fox Bar & Grill 5377 16th St. W. 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Crave 1603 West End Blvd. 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Noodles & Company 8120 Hwy. 7 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Prime Deli 4224 Minnetonka Blvd. 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Texa-Tonka Lanes 8200 Minnetonka Blvd. 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave. So. 12/27/16 1 $2,000
Blaze Pizza, Crave, Noodles & Company, Texa-Tonka Lanes, and Westwood Liquors
accepted their violations and paid their respective penalties.
Blue Fox Bar & Grill appeared at an Administrative Hearing with the City Manager on
January 18, 2017. At the hearing, the City Manager upheld the prescribed penalty. The
licensee subsequently accepted the violation and paid the $2,000 penalty.
Prime Deli appeared at an Administrative Hearing with the City Manager on January 18,
2017. At the hearing, the City Manager upheld the prescribed penalty of $2,000. The
licensee subsequently accepted the violation and paid the $2,000 penalty.
All establishments that successfully passed the compliance check received a congratulatory letter
from the Police Department. Those establishments that did not pass the compliance check were
offered and provided Alcohol Server Training from our Police Department, free of charge.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
BLAZE PIZZA
8126 HIGHWAY 7
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Blaze Pizza, 8126 Highway 7 in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
BLUE FOX BAR & GRILL
5377 16th STREET WEST
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Blue Fox Bar & Grill, located at 5377 16th Street West in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 1, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
CRAVE
1603 WEST END BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Crave, located at 1603 West End Boulevard in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
NOODLES & COMPANY
8120 HIGHWAY 7
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Noodles & Company, located at 8120 Highway 7 in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
PRIME DELI
4224 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Prime Deli, located at 4224 Minnetonka Boulevard in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
TEXA-TONKA LANES
8200 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Texa-Tonka Lanes, located at 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Title: Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY
FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION
OCCURRING ON DECEMBER 27, 2016 AT
WESTWOOD LIQUORS
2304 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2016, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor,
occurred at Westwood Liquors, located at 2304 Louisiana Avenue South in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license violation was the first occurrence at this establishment
within three years; and
WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a
violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through 3-75; and
WHEREAS, the license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed
to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City
Council.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $2,000 is hereby imposed
on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Liquor License Renewals
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution for 2017 Liquor License Renewals
for the license term of March 1, 2017 through March 1, 2018
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve renewal of liquor licenses for the
attached licensees who have met the necessary criteria to obtain a license?
SUMMARY: The City has received the required information from current liquor license
establishments for renewal of their liquor licenses. The required documents include state and city
renewal applications, certificates of liquor liability insurance, proof of workers’ compensation
compliance, and license fees. Each of the establishments listed in Exhibit A of the attached
resolution have met the criteria necessary for issuance of their respective liquor licenses.
During the 2016-2017 license period, the following new liquor licenses were approved:
Board & Brush – St. Louis Park, 5810A W. 36th St. (On-Sale Wine and 3.2)
Copperwing Distillery, 6409 Cambridge St. (Cocktail Room, Microdistillery Off-Sale)
Punch Bowl Social, 1691 West End Blvd. (On-Sale Intoxicating with Sunday Sale)
Starbucks #2696, 3850 Grand Way (On-Sale Wine and 3.2)
Two licensees closed in the same time period:
Blackstone Bistro, 3808 Grand Way (On-Sale Intoxicating with Sunday Sale)
MD Liquors, 8942 Highway 7 (Off-Sale)
Three establishments changed or are changing ownership:
St. Louis Park Liquor, 6316 Minnetonka Blvd.
Thanh Do, 8028 Minnetonka Blvd.
Brush Studios, 1651 Park Place Blvd.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees received for liquor license renewals are
budgeted and defray the costs the city incurs to administer and enforce liquor licensing regulations
and requirements.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution with Exhibit A - List of Establishments
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: 2017 Liquor License Renewals
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3 regulates liquor licensing. The city also
abides by state statutes related to liquor licensing. The licensing period for liquor is one year,
beginning March 1.
Renewal of licenses is done in accordance with the following section:
City Code Sec. 3-64. Renewal application.
(a) Applications for the renewal of an existing liquor license shall be made at least 45 days
prior to the date of the expiration of the license, and shall state that everything in the prior
application remains true and correct except as otherwise indicated on the renewal application.
(b) Renewal applications for an On-Sale License for a restaurant shall include a certified public
accountant's statement showing total sales, food sales, liquor sales and percentage of total sales of
the restaurant for the previous year.
REVIEW AND REGULATIONS: The City Clerk’s Office reviews all the application
information and works with the Police Department to assure all licensees meet the necessary
criteria for issuance of the next year’s term of their liquor license.
As required by City Code Sections 3-57 and 3-70, all On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Wine
licensees are in compliance with food/liquor ratio requirements:
On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License must have a minimum of 50% of gross receipts
attributable to the sale of food.
On-Sale Wine License - The holder of a wine license who is also licensed to sell 3.2 percent
malt liquor on-sale and whose gross receipts are at least 60 percent attributable to the sale
of food, may also sell intoxicating malt liquor at on-sale without an additional license.
As required in City Code Section 3-70, all property tax payments for establishments are current.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All license renewals and applications as listed on Exhibit A of
the Resolution have met the ordinance requirements. All items are in order and recommendation
is made for approval and issuance of the appropriate licenses for the term of March 1, 2017 to
March 1, 2018.
SPECIAL NOTES:
Brush Studio, formerly a sole proprietorship, reported the addition of officers holding
interest in ownership of the business. Per City Code provisions, a background investigation
is currently being processed on the new officers. This license will be brought to council for
consideration on February 21, 2016.
Thanh Do is in the process of changing ownership. Upon successful completion of all
paperwork and background investigations, a request for transfer of the license to the new
ownership will be brought to council at a public hearing on March 6, 2017. Because of the
timing of this request the current licensee, Thanh Do, Inc., remains on the list for renewal
and would continue to be responsible for operation of the establishment until such time a
change in ownership is formally approved.
Starbucks #2696 elected not to pursue renewal of their liquor license for the 2017-18
license period. The licensee was informed that failure to renew would require them to go
through the entire application and approval process if they choose to pursue a liquor license
again in the future.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: 2017 Liquor License Renewals
RESOLUTION NO. 17- ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
FOR MARCH 1, 2017 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2018
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3
provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division
of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that
the applicants and establishments listed in Exhibit A have met the criteria necessary for issuance
of their respective liquor licenses, and the applications are hereby approved for March 1, 2017 to
March 1, 2018.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: 2017 Liquor License Renewals
Resolution No. 17-___ 2017 Liquor License Renewals EXHIBIT A
Business Name Licensee Name Address License Type
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar Apple Minnesota, LLC 8312 Highway 7 On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Best of India Best of India Inc. 8120 Minnetonka Blvd On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Blaze Pizza Team DHW, LLC 8126 Hwy. 7 On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Blue Fox Bar & Grill Inchin Corporation 5377 W. 16th St. On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Board & Brush – St. Louis Park Madilin Creative, LLC 5810A W. 36th St. On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Bonefish Grill Bonefish Grill, LLC 1607 West End Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Bunny's Bar and Grill Rackner Inc. 5916 Excelsior Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Chipotle Mexican Grill, #311 Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, 5480 Excelsior Blvd On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Cooper The Cooper LLC 1607 Park Place Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Copperwing Distillery Hennepin Distilling, LLC 6409 Cambridge Street Microdistillery Off-Sale & Cocktail
Room On-Sale
Costco Wholesale #377 Costco Wholesale Corporation 5801 W 16th St Off-Sale
Crave Crave Hospitality WE LLC 1603 West End Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Cub Foods SuperValu, Inc. 5370 16th Street W Off-Sale 3.2
Cub Foods Knollwood Diamond Lake 1994 LLC 3620 Texas Ave S Off-Sale 3.2
Cub Liquor SuperValu, Inc. 5370 16th Street W Off-Sale
DoubleTree Minneapolis Park Place MLCV STLP, LLC 1500 Park Place Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Frank Lundberg American Legion
Post 282
Frank Lundberg American Legion Post
282
5605 36th St W On-Sale Intoxicating Club & Sunday
Sale
Granite City Food & Brewery Granite City Restaurant Operations, Inc. 5500 Excelsior Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Brewpub Off-Sale
Homewood Suites HSSLP LLC 5305 Wayzata Blvd On-Sale 3.2
Jennings' Liquor Store Jennings Red Coach Inn Inc. 4631 Excelsior Blvd Off-Sale
Knollwood Liquor Knollwood Liquor Inc. 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Off-Sale
Liquor Boy Liquor Boy, Inc. 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Off-Sale
Lunds & Byerly's Wines & Spirits Byerly Beverages, Inc. 3777 Park Ctr Blvd Off-Sale
Lunds & Byerly's-St. Louis Park Byerly's, Inc. 3777 Park Ctr Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Marriott Mpls West CSM Lodging Services, Inc. 9960 & 9970 Wayzata
Blvd
On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
McCoy's Public House McCoy's of Minneapolis, Inc. 3801 Grand Way On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
MGM Wine & Spirits IAW Management, LLC 8100 Highway 7 Off-Sale
Mill Valley Kitchen Mill Valley Corporation 3906 Excelsior Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Minneapolis Golf Club Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S On-Sale Intoxicating Club & Sunday
Sale
Noodles & Company The Noodle Shop, Co. - Colorado, Inc. 5326 16th Street W On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Noodles & Company The Noodle Shop, Co. - Colorado, Inc. 8120 Highway 7 On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Olive Garden Italian Restaurant #1424 GMRI Inc. 5235 Wayzata Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes Philips Investment Co. 3401 Louisiana Ave S On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Pei Wei Asian Diner Pei Wei Asian Diner, LLC 5330 Cedar Lake Road On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Pinot’s Palette Lifeswork Enterprises, LLC 4712 Excelsior Blvd. On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Prime Deli Weinberg Brothers Investments Co.,
LLC
4224 Minnetonka Blvd. On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Punch Bowl Social Punch Bowl Minneapolis, LLC 1691 West End Blvd. On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Raku Sushi & Lounge Raku Sushi & Lounge, Inc. 5371 16th St W. On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Rojo Mexican Grill Rojo West End LLC 1602 West End Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Sam's Club #6318 Sam's West Inc. 3745 Louisiana Ave S Off-Sale
Showplace 14 #8863 Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, LLC 1625 West End Blvd. On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Smashburger #1419 Smashburger Acquisition-Mpls., LLC 8124 Highway 7 On-Sale Wine & 3.2
St. Louis Park Liquor Kevin Tran 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Off-Sale
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Title: 2017 Liquor License Renewals
Business Name Licensee Name Address License Type
Steel Toe Brewing Steel Toe Brewing LLC 4848 35th St W Brewer Off-Sale; Taproom On-Sale
& Sunday Sale
Target Store T-2189 Target Corporation 8900 Highway 7 Off-Sale
Taste of India Rasoi, Inc 5617 Wayzata Blvd On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Texas-Tonka Liquor Texas Tonka Liquor, Inc. 8242 Minnetonka Blvd Off-Sale
Texa-Tonka Lanes H.J.K.S. Inc. 8200 Minnetonka Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
TGI Friday's Central Florida Restaurants, Inc. 5875 Wayzata Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Thanh Do Thanh Do Inc. 8028 Minnetonka Blvd. On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
The Loop Loop West End, LLC 5331 16th St W On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Top Ten Liquors Yayin Gadol, LLC 5111 Excelsior Blvd Off-Sale
Trader Joe's #710 Trader Joe's East, Inc. 4500 Excelsior Blvd Off-Sale
Westwood Liquors FC Liquors 2 Inc. 2304 Louisiana Ave S Off-Sale
Wok in the Park A Wok in the Park LLC 3005 Utah Ave South On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Yangtze River Restaurant Yangtze Inc. 5625 Wayzata Blvd On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Yard House #8354 Yard House USA, Inc. 1665 Park Place Blvd. On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale
Yum! Kitchen and Bakery Yum!, Inc. 4000 Minnetonka Blvd On-Sale Wine & 3.2
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Liquor License Fees
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution for 2017 liquor license fees for the
license term March 1, 2017 through March 1, 2018 pursuant to M.S. Section 340A.408 and Section
3-59 of the St. Louis Park City Code.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed liquor license fees for
2017?
SUMMARY: City Code provisions permit the Council to set liquor license fees annually, by
resolution, in amounts no greater than those set forth in M.S. Ch. 340A. The City annually reviews
and completes a fee study on the costs of providing license administration and enforcement. Staff
has compared the proposed liquor license fees to those of other cities in the metro area and also
solicited input from the Police Department to see if any increases are warranted. Based on this
analysis and review, staff is not proposing any fee increases for 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: State law sets the limits on the annual fees
that may be charged for certain types of liquor licenses. Where there is no state restriction, the City
can set the fee at an amount to reflect the cost of issuing the license and other costs directly related
to enforcement. License fees may not be used as a means of raising revenues.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2017 Liquor License Establishments by License Type
Resolution
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Resolution Adopting 2017 Liquor License Fees
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: City Code provisions permit the Council to set liquor license fees annually,
by resolution, in amounts no greater than those set forth in M.S. Ch. 340A.The proposed liquor
license fees have been reviewed by staff and reflect the limits set forth in state law to cover costs
of providing administration and enforcement. St. Louis Park liquor fees are consistent with other
metro cities fees.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: No increases to liquor license fees are recommended for 2017
because staff found St. Louis Park’s liquor license fees to be comparable to those of surrounding
cities in the metro area.
Proposed 2017 Liquor License Fees
The following is a list of the current and proposed liquor license fees. On Sale Intoxicating fees
are higher than other liquor fees due to additional staff time for police enforcement (restaurants
are open Sundays and some have 2 a.m. closing). Off-sale licenses generally require less police
staff time due to the fact that alcohol is not consumed on the premises and they are open fewer
hours.
Liquor License Type: 2016 Fee 2017 Fee
Effective 3/1/2017
Fee amount
set by:
Brewpub Off Sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Brewers Off Sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380 STATE
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280 $280 STATE
On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750 City
On Sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750 $8,750 City
On Sale Brewer’s Taproom $600 $600 City
On Sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200 STATE
On Sale Wine $2,000 $2,000 STATE
Club (per # members): 1 - 200 $300 $300 STATE
201 - 500 $500 $500 STATE
501 - 1000 $650 $650 STATE
1001 - 2000 $800 $800 STATE
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000 STATE
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000 STATE
6000+ $3,000 $3,000 STATE
Temporary On Sale Liquor $100/day $100/day City
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Resolution Adopting 2017 Liquor License Fees
Background Investigation 2016 Fee 2017 Fee Fee set
by
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
STATE
New Store Manager $500 $500 STATE
On Sale license renewal per
340A.412 Subd. 2
$500 $500 STATE
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Resolution Adopting 2017 Liquor License Fees
Current Liquor License Establishments by License Type
2017 LIQUOR
LICENSES
Type
2 am
close
Off sale
Brew/
Pub
Off sale
Micro-
distiller
Off
Sale
3.2
On sale
Cocktail
Room
On sale
Taproom
On sale
3.2
On sale
Intox
On Sale
Sunday
Off sale
Intox
On Sale
Wine
On
Sale
Club
License Issued by: State City State City City City City City City State State State
Applebee's Grill & Bar 8750 200
Best of India 750 2000
Blaze Pizza 750 2000
Blue Fox Bar & Grill 8750 200
Board & Brush – St.
Louis Park
New
750 2000
Bonefish Grill 8750 200
Brush Studio 750 2000
Bunny’s 2 am 8750 200
Chipotle Mexican Grill 750 2000
Cooper 2 am 8750 200
Copperwing Distillery
New
200 600
Costco Wholesale #377 380
Crave 2 am 8750 200
Cub Foods 200
Cub Foods Knollwood 200
Cub Liquor 380
Doubletree Park Place 8750 200
Frank Lundberg
American Legion
200 500
Granite City Food &
Brewery
200 8750 200
Homewood Suites 750
Jennings’ Liquor Store 380
Knollwood Liquor 380
Liquor Boy 380
Lunds & Byerly’s Wine
& Spirits
380
Lunds & Byerly’s – St.
Louis Park
8750 200
Marriott Mpls West 8750 200
McCoy’s Public House 2 am 8750 200
MGM Wine & Spirits 380
Mill Valley Kitchen 8750 200
Minneapolis Golf Club 200 500
Noodles & Company 750 2000
Noodles & Company 750 2000
Olive Garden 8750 200
Park Tavern Lounge &
Lanes
2 am 8750 200
Pei Wei Asian Diner 750 2000
Pinot’s Palette 750 2000
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Title: Resolution Adopting 2017 Liquor License Fees
Current Liquor License Establishments by License Type
Continued
2017 LIQUOR
LICENSES
Type
2 am
close
Off sale
Brew/
Pub
Off sale
Micro-
distiller
Off sale
3.2
On sale
Cocktail
Room
On sale
Taproom
On sale
3.2
On sale
Intox
On Sale
Sunday
Off sale
Intox
On sale
Wine
On sale
Club
License Issued by: State City State City City City City City City State State State
Prime Deli 750 2000
Punch Bowl Social
New
8750 200
Raku Sushi & Lounge 8750 200
Rojo Mexican Grill 2 am 8750 200
Sam’s Club #6318 380
Showplace 14 #8863 2 am 8750 200
Smashburger 750 2000
Steel Toe Brewing 200 600 200
St. Louis Park Liquor 380
Target Store T-2189 380
Taste of India 750 2000
Texa-Tonka Lanes 2 am 8750 200
Texas-Tonka Liquor 380
TGI Friday’s 2 am 8750 200
Thanh Do 8750 200
The Loop 2 am 8750 200
Top Ten Liquors 380
Trader Joe’s #710 380
Westwood Liquors 380
Wok in the Park 750 2000
Yangtze River
Restaurant
8750 200
Yard House #8354 8750 200
Yum! Kitchen and
Bakery
750 2000
Total
number 2 1 2 1 1 15 24 27 14 14 2
Fee Totals $400 $200 $400 $600 $600 $11,250 $210,000 $5,400 $5,320 $28,000 $1,000
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Title: Resolution Adopting 2017 Liquor License Fees
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2017 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
FOR THE LICENSE TERM
MARCH 1, 2017 – MARCH 1, 2018
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to
establish annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in
M.S.A. Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain fees in an amount necessary to cover
the cost of administration and enforcement of regulating liquor in the city; and
WHEREAS, fees called for within the Section 3-59 of the City Code and Minnesota State
Statute Chapter 340A are hereby set by this resolution for the 2017 license term effective March
1, 2017 through March 1, 2018; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, fees for 2017 liquor licenses are hereby adopted as follows:
Liquor License Type: 2017 Fee
Effective 3/1/2017
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Brewers Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Microdistillery Off-Sale $200
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280
On-sale Brewer’s Taproom $600
On-sale Cocktail Room $600
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 – 200 $300
201 – 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Temporary On-sale Liquor $100/day
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 7
Title: Resolution Adopting 2017 Liquor License Fees
Background Investigation Fee
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
New Store Manager $500
On-sale license renewal per
340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Discover St. Louis Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a donation
from Discover St. Louis Park for registration, hotel, airfare and cab fare for Jason West, Recreation
Superintendent to attend the 2017 National Association of Sports Commission (“NASC”) Sports
Event Symposium held March 27 – 31, 2017 in Sacramento, California in an approximate amount
not to exceed $2,500.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on
its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Discover St. Louis Park is graciously donating an estimated $2,500 for registration, hotel, airfare,
and cab fare expenses for Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, to attend the upcoming 2017
NASC Sports Event Symposium held March 27 – 31, 2017 in Sacramento, California. Jason will
attend this event with staff from Discover St. Louis Park in an attempt to bring larger sporting
events to St. Louis Park. Jason attended this event in 2014 and 2015 and made many connections
with large event organizers. The partnership between the City and Discover St. Louis Park has
proven to be extremely successful.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used toward the
expenses incurred by Jason West’s attendance to the 2017 NASC Sports Event Symposium held
March 27 – 31, 2017 in Sacramento, California.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Discover St. Louis Park
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $2,500 FROM DISCOVER ST. LOUIS PARK
FOR EXPENSES FOR JASON WEST, RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT, TO
ATTEND THE 2017 NASC SPORTS EVENT SYMPOSIUM MARCH 27 – 31, 2017
IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Discover St. Louis Park will pay for the National Association of Sports
Commission registration, hotel, airfare, and cab fare in an approximate amount up to $2,500 for
Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, to attend the 2017 NASC Sports Event Symposium held
March 27 – 31, 2017 in Sacramento, California; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Discover St. Louis Park with the understanding
that it must be used for registration, airfare, hotel, and cab fare expenses incurred by Jason West
to attend the 2017 NASC Sports Event Symposium March 27 – 31, 2017 in Sacramento,
California.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation for Westwood Hills Nature Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution accepting a monetary donation from
Jason Wallestad, Sonja Saunders and Iris Wallestad in the amount of $1,000 for Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept these gifts with restrictions
on their use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Jason Wallestad, Sonja Saunders and Iris Wallestad graciously donated $1,000 to Westwood Hills
Nature Center. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used for Westwood Hills Nature
Center program supplies.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donations will be used at Westwood
Hills Nature Center for program supplies.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Carrie Mandler, Westwood Hills Nature Center Secretary / Program Aide
Reviewed by: Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation for Westwood Hills Nature Center
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1000 TO BE USED AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE
CENTER FOR PROGRAM SUPPLIES
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Jason Wallestad, Sonja Saunders and Iris Wallestad donated $1,000; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the monetary gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Jason Wallestad, Sonja Saunders and
Iris Wallestad, with the understanding that the donation must be used at Westwood Hills Nature
Center for program supplies.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for SWLRT
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve an Agreement between the City and Hennepin
County to further the goals of the SWLRT (Green Line Extension) and the Southwest Community
Works Investment Framework.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to put in place a formal agreement
with Hennepin County to work together to accomplish the goals and future projects of the SWLRT
(Green Line Extension) and the Southwest Community Works Investment Framework?
SUMMARY: The City previously approved a similar agreement between Hennepin County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the city on 3-16-15. This additional agreement would
allow funding from Hennepin County, rather than through the County’s HRA, and requires an
agreement to be in place as well. No specific funding between the County and City is proposed at
this time and there is no cost related to this agreement; individual projects will come back for
approval as they move forward. This agreement allows Hennepin County and St. Louis Park to
work collaboratively under the multijurisdictional statue and satisfies the statutory requirement for
use of Community Works funding. The Hennepin County Board has approved use of Southwest
Community Works funding to support design and construction of trail grade separation in St. Louis
Park as well as other elements of SWLRT.
The attached agreement is for your consideration and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The
agreement will expire on December 31, 2020.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. This agreement provides
a framework for cooperation for funding in the future as specific projects are brought forth.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Cooperative Agreement
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for SWLRT
Hennepin County Contract No. A166833
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY
AND CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
This Agreement is between the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (“COUNTY”),
300 South Sixth Street, A2300, Minneapolis, MN 55487, and the City of St. Louis Park (“CITY”),
5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY have each provided municipal approval for the Green
Line Extension Project (“Green Line Extension”) pursuant to state law; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY have each approved the Southwest Corridor Investment
Framework (“Framework”) dated December 2013 through respective resolutions Hennepin
County Resolution 14-0490, and City of St. Louis Park No. 14-060 dated April 21, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY agree that there are financial and strategic benefits
of working together to further the goals of the Green Line Extension and the Framework (“Goals”)
and wish to document that understanding in a cooperative agreement; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY plan to develop one or more projects (“Project or
Projects”) to further the Goals; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative agreement and future Projects fit within the criteria of a
multijurisdictional reinvestment program authorized under Minnesota Statutes §383B.79; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY have the authority to participate in a cooperative
agreement and Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§383B.79 and 471.59 and other applicable
law.
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Furtherance of Goals. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 383B.79, COUNTY and
CITY enter into this cooperative agreement, and agree to work with each other to further
the goals of the Green Line Extension and the Framework by attempting to develop one
or more Projects subject to the following requirements:
a. That the CITY retains its jurisdiction over all issues of local concern relating to
zoning, land usage, building code requirements and compliance with all applicable
city codes and ordinances.
b. That the full faith and credit of the CITY will not be pledged as a source of payment
or repayment of said Project financial obligations owed by Hennepin County.
This agreement shall commence on January 1, 2017 and expire on December 31, 2020.
2. Merger and Modification.
a. The entire Agreement between the parties is contained in this Agreement and
supersedes all oral agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for SWLRT
All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part
of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and
referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
b. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement and signed by the parties.
3. Notices. Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this
Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or
certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator at the
address stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement. Notice to the CITY shall be sent
to the address stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement.
4. Audits. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the
each party relevant to this agreement are subject to examination by the any party and either
Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six years after the effective date of
this Agreement.
5. Termination. This Agreement terminates when the Projects, and the funding therefor, have
been completed.
COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Reviewed by the County
Attorney’s Office
By:
Chair of Its Board
Date: Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
Recommended for Approval:
Director, Community Works
Date:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Title: Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for SWLRT
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: _________________________
Its: Mayor
Date: _______________________
By: _________________________
Its: City Manager
Date: _______________________
Attest:
City Clerk: _______________________
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Pay Equity Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the 2016 Pay Equity Report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
SUMMARY: The City is required to comply with the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act,
MS 471.991-471.999 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3920. The report must include data as of
December 31, 2016 and be submitted to the Minnesota Management and Budget office (MMB) by
January 31, 2017. Prior to submission to MMB, the governing body of the jurisdiction must
approve the report.
Pay equity reporting requirements are very specific. Local government jurisdictions are required
to submit this detailed information every three years based on a schedule set by MMB. The
attached information shows wage and benefit data as of December 31, 2016, for all classes of City
employees who work at least 14 hours per week and 67 days per year (100 days in the case of
students). MMB will fully review our report and notify us sometime in 2017 whether we are “in
compliance” or “out of compliance.” A preliminary statistical analysis of the data using the MMB
Pay Equity Software shows that the City of St. Louis Park is in compliance with Pay Equity
parameters.
Council was initially given this information in a report on January 26, 2017 and data was submitted
to MMB on January 30, 2017. This consent item will serve as formal approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2016 Pay Equity Report
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
!
"# $
% !&'(')
)*
+,,
'(-#
-#
. #
/)0 ,0 1% 1 2%
(
+3
+
/
4#
#
+
5
6 5
7/
8 -
8 -+ #
+9+#
773777
7:/+
; -
38 <
+29+ -#
-#"#
= 6
=2-# +
'/
4
+
+#-# +
!
"
#
='
6
+
6= 5
+
(*('
> 5
+
)66+?,
$
@)"> 8-
6 5##
+6+> 88-
6 5##
+,
%
&
&/ 8; -)&;,?:
8(?
'/88
#
+8 -##
+8 -
A 6?
6'/88
#
+8 -##
+8 8-
A 6?
# '
& (
" )
''/= 8+
-
4
+8 -
A 6?
'/= 8+
-
4
+8 8-
A 6?
* +, * , # '
& (
" )
'> 8-
/2@
> 88-
/2
@)78 > 356,
1 B0 !
00 1 B 0!
!31 30 !3 !!
-./0
B B
1 B0
B1 !
CB0
C
1212
BB
///
B
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4h)
Title: 2016 Pay Equity Report Page 2
! " # ! "#$
% &
' ( ) !" !"#
*&
'( $ !" !"$
# + * ,
+ - . ! " ! "$$
/0& ' ( . !" !"
*&
) ! " ! "$$
*1 ' ( !" !"$
$ + * ,
+ - . ! " ! "
$
2* 3
, & ! " ! "
&& 3 * . ! " ! "
' ( ) !" !"$
$ , &4 &
) ! " ! "$
5 3 3 ! " ! "$
2*& +& 1 $# ! "# !"
$$ /
! " ! "#
+
&
*1 $ $ ) !" !$" $
&4
& ! "# !"$$
$ 3 &4 &
. ! " !"
$ + *$ ,
+ - . ! " !"
$
& &4 &
! " !"
$ * 1
. * - & ! " !"
6*
. ! " !"
$ *
/-
$ ! "$$ !" #
$ * 1
3
,- & . ! " !"
$#
7**- &
* . $ ! "$ !"$#
$$ 8% &4 &
. $ ! "$ !"$#
-
&4 . ! " !" $
+ * ,
+ - . ! " !"
6
! " !"
$ 0,
7 , - & ! " !"
*- + ' ( ) !" $ ! "
$ . 034 $ !"$ !" $ 3 +7
9
* ) ! " !" $
2*&8 3- &
* . ! " !" $
,, 7
. ! "## !"
*
. ! "## !"
# ,, &
. ! "## !"
# 5 3 3 &4 &
! "## !"
5& ,& + *-, - . ! "## !"
# &4 &
$ # !" !"#
.
!"$ !"$ 3 +7
*& /00& $ ! " !"
!"# !"
$ &&
!"# !"
5 3 3 &4 &
. !" !" $
& &4 !" !" $
* 1
3
, . !" !" $
$ 8 3
& . !" #$ !" $
--
!" #$ !" $
$ 5 + , :
2* . !" #$ !" $
. * - + !"# !"
; 3 , !" !"
- &$ !" !"
# % &
- + ) !"#$ !"
&&
. !"#$ !"
2*&8 3
. !"#$ !"
$ *
. !" !"
$# < &
$ !" !"
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4h)
Title: 2016 Pay Equity Report Page 3
- &' ( ) !$" $ ! "$
--
. # !" !"#$
5 3 # !" !"#$
7 * . !" !"#
$ ,, &
*--
. !" !"#
/00&
3 . !" !"#
*7 . !" !"#
.
-
$ !" !"#
% &
3 !" !"#
1
% &
3 !" !"#
&&
. $ !"# !#"
#
8 3- + . !" !#"
$ /-
3 !" !#"
9
*% & !"$ !#" #
$ 8%
. !"$ !#" #
- & +&
3 . !"$ !#" #
9
3 !"$ !#" #
4 00
3
5 !"$ !#" #
5& ,& + *-, !" !#"
5=-- !" !#"
*& 3
# !#"# !#" $
,, &
: 3 . # !" !#"#
.
&
3 # !" !#"#
. 4 0 # !" !#"#
4 0)* 3/00&
* # !" !#"#
2*&1 +& 3 # !" !#"#
7 ',
( # !#" !"$
3 # !" !#"#
5 3 3< & 3 $ # !#" !" #
# *&
) # !#"$ !"$
# *
3
; 3- # !#"$ !"$
>* - # !#"$ !"$
% &
- # !#"$ !"$
&-
**
. # !#"$ !"$
#
- !#" $ !"$
$ -7. 4 0 !#" $ !"$
# 4 0.
&
*/00& !" !" #
# -7*& 4 0 !" !" #
2*&1 - !" !" #
# . 4 0 !" $ !"#
# - & & !" $ !"#
4 0 0,
/00& !" $ !"#
# 8 3- + ? -7 . $ !" !" $
5 3 3 & . $ !" !" $
,, 7 + & $ !" !" $
# -7 7
3 . !"$$ !$"
## /-
% & & . # !" $ !$"#
*& 4 0 # !" $ !$"#
$ 7
3 $ ! " !"#
@29,2
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4h)
Title: 2016 Pay Equity Report Page 4
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 674: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at the Intersections of 16th
St. & 22nd St.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to rescind Resolution 1573, repeal a portion of
Resolution 4617 Item 5 (Yield signs on W. 22nd Street at Kentucky Avenue), and Adopt Resolution
authorizing the installation of east-west stop signs on 16th Street and 22nd Street at Kentucky
Avenue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: Engineering staff received a request in October 2016 to replace the existing east-
west YIELD signs with STOP signs at the intersections of 16th Street at Kentucky and 22nd Street
at Kentucky Avenue. Both Stop and Yield traffic control devices have similar warrant criteria in
the Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). The Traffic Committee
discussed the request in November and recommended to support the request after seeking public
feedback. Engineering staff sent letters to nearby property owners in November. Staff received 3
responses in favor and 0 responses opposed to the proposal.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Traffic Study #674
Map
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 674: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at the Intersections of 16th St. & 22nd St.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-___
AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS
AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF 16TH STREET AT KENTUCKY AVENUE
AND 22ND STREET AT KENTUCKY AVENUE
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 674
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that it
is appropriate to replace existing YIELD signs with STOP signs at the intersection of 16th Street
at Kentucky; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that it
is appropriate to replace existing YIELD signs with STOP signs at the intersection of 22nd Street
and Kentucky Avenue.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to rescind Resolution 1573 authorizing
the installation of east-west YIELD signs at 16th Street and Kentucky Avenue.
2. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to repeal a portion of Resolution 4617
Item 5 authorizing the installation of east-west YIELD signs at 22nd Street and
Kentucky Avenue.
3. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install east-west STOP signs at the
intersection of 16th Street and Kentucky Avenue.
4. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install east-west STOP signs at the
intersection of 22nd Street and Kentucky Avenue.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 674: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at the Intersections of 16th St. & 22nd St.
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 674
Installation of Stop Signs on 16th St and 22nd St at Kentucky Avenue
The intersections of 16th Street at Kentucky and 22nd Street at Kentucky Avenue are currently
controlled with east-west YIELD signs. YIELD signs were authorized to be placed on 22nd Street
at Kentucky Avenue through Resolution 1573, dated January 9, 1961. YIELD signs were
authorized to be placed on 22nd Street at Kentucky Avenue through Resolution 4617, dated August
21, 1972.
The Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) guides the installation
of yield and stop signs. Yield and stop signs have similar traffic criteria for two-way
implementation.
Recommendation
The Traffic Committee recommends replacing east-west YIELD signs with STOP signs at these
two intersections, pending public feedback. Staff did not receive any negative property owner
feedback regarding the proposed traffic change.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Title: Traffic Study No. 674: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at the Intersections of 16th St. & 22nd St.
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 674
16th Street at Kentucky Avenue
22nd Street at Kentucky Avenue
(YIELD to STOP Sign Replacement)
Existing: Yield Signs
Proposed: Stop Signs
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Request to Advance MSA Funds for Texas Avenue Rehabilitation Project No. 4017-
1101
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to Request to Advance Funds for
MSA Rehabilitation Project - Texas Avenue - Project No. 4017-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to advance encumber Municipal
State Aid funds to help pay for the MSA Rehabilitation Project - Texas Avenue – (4017-1101)?
SUMMARY: On October 17, 2016, the City Council approved the Texas Avenue Rehabilitation
project. This street is an important north/south route in the City and is designated as a Municipal
State Aid (MSA) road which makes it eligible for state funding (gas tax dollars).
M.S. 162.14, Subd 6 provides for municipalities to make advances from future year’s allocations
for the purpose of expediting construction. This process not only helps reduce the construction
cash balance, but also allows municipalities to fund projects that may have been delayed due to
funding shortages.
In order to request an advance on future allotments, the City needs to submit an Advance
Resolution authorizing the advance. This will reserve the funding for this project.
The City receives $1,275,000 annually into our MSA construction account. Advances are repaid
from next year’s allocation until fully repaid. The City can advance up to $4,000,000. There is
no interest or other obligations that need to be paid back on advanced funds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The engineer’s estimate for this project is
$4,509,000. Construction - $3,509,000, Engineering and Administration - $1,000,000. This
project is included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017. Funding will be provided by
a combination of MSA, Utility Funds, and General Obligation Bonds (Connect the Park).
Account Balance as of January 30, 2017 $2,460,604.10
Less estimated disbursements:
Texas Avenue Project (163-275-019) $ 4,509,000
Total Estimated Disbursements $ 4,509,000
Advance Amount (amount in excess of acct balance) $2,048,395.90
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Request to Advance MSA Funds for Texas Avenue Rehabilitation Project No. 4017-1101
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION TO ADVANCE
MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Municipality of St. Louis Park is planning to implement a Municipal
State Aid Street Project in 2017 which will require State Aid funds in excess of those available in
its State Aid Construction Account, and
WHEREAS, said municipality is prepared to proceed with the construction of said project
through the use of an advance from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund to supplement the
available funds in their State Aid Construction Account, and
WHEREAS, the advance is based on the following determination of estimated
expenditures:
Account Balance as of January 30, 2017 $2,460,604.10
Less estimated disbursements:
Project # 163-275-019 $ 4,509,000
Total Estimated Disbursements $ 4,509,000
Advance Amount (amount in excess of acct balance) $2,048,395.90
WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subd. 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820.1500, Subp.
10b, and
WHEREAS, the Municipality acknowledges advance funds are released on a first-come-
first-serve basis and this resolution does not guarantee the availability of funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Commissioner of Transportation
be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid
Street Project of the Municipality of St. Louis Park in an amount up to $2,048,395.90. I hereby
authorize repayments from subsequent accruals to the Municipal State Aid Street Construction
Account of said Municipality from future year allocations until fully repaid.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4k
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Collateral
Assignment and Security Agreements between PLACE and Local Initiatives Support Corporation
(LISC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the city find that the proposed Collateral Assignment and
Security Agreements, are in conformance with the grant agreements with PLACE and to be in the
best interest of the city and its residents?
SUMMARY: In 2016, the PLACE St. Louis Park Project was awarded a $2 million Metropolitan
Council LCA-TOD grant and a $750,000 Hennepin County HRA-TOD grant award. These grants
operate on a reimbursement basis, thereby requiring up-front expenditures to perform many
preliminary grant-eligible activities. PLACE is obtaining a predevelopment loan from the national
community revitalization organization known as Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). As
one of the conditions to advance loan disbursements to fund grant-eligible/reimbursable activities,
LISC has asked PLACE to assign PLACE’s interests—the right to be reimbursed for grant-eligible
activities—in these two grants to LISC. These assignments will serve as collateral under the LISC
predevelopment loan to ensure that LISC’s loan is repaid in the event of a default by PLACE.
These Collateral Assignment Agreements would also allow LISC the right to cure defaults by
PLACE under PLACE’s grant agreements with the city.
PLACE has requested that the City Council approve a Collateral Assignment and Security
Agreement for both the TOD and LCA-TOD grants as a requirement of the predevelopment
financing for the project.
There are two provisions of particular note within the proposed Agreement: Paragraph 4 (page 6)
provides that the city shall get prior consent from the lender to alter or amend the grant agreements.
Paragraph 5 provides that the city must provide notice to the lender of any default by PLACE in
order to provide the lender the opportunity to cure defaults by PLACE.
The proposed agreement has been reviewed by the city attorney who recommends its approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Dep. CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
PLACE AND LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park (“City”) on behalf of PLACE entered into a
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Transit Oriented Development Grant agreement Dated
January 13, 2016 (the “LCA-TOD Agreement”), regarding redevelopment of property at the
southeast corner of Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave.
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and PLACE (“Redeveloper”) entered into a
LCA-TOD development Sub-grant agreement Dated November, 16, 2016 (the “Sub-grant
agreement”), regarding redevelopment of property at the southeast corner of Hwy 7 and Wooddale
Ave.
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park (“City”) on behalf of PLACE (the “Redeveloper”)
entered into a Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development Grant agreement Dated May 3, 2016
(the “TOD Agreement”), regarding redevelopment of property at the southeast corner of Hwy 7 and
Wooddale Ave.
WHEREAS, PLACE is pursuing a predevelopment loan from the non-profit-LISC for up-
front expenditures to perform grant-eligible activities.
WHEREAS, as a requirement of such loan, PLACE seeks to assign the rights of PLACE
under the LCA-TOD Contract, Sub-grant agreement and TOD Contract to LISC, pursuant to an
Assignment and Security Agreement (“Assignment”) between PLACE and LISC.
WHEREAS, The City has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and
execution of the City’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, approves the Collateral Assignment and Security Agreement for the LCA-TOD
and Sub-grant Agreement and the TOD agreements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 16, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agree ments – PLACE
LISC P.A. No. 47336-0002
(LMS Loan No. 13058)
COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
(Metropolitan Council Grant)
COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (this "Assignment"),
made as of the __ day of ______, 2017, from PLACE, a Minnesota non-profit corporation with its
principal offices at 100 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
("Assignor") to LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION, a New York not-for-profit
corporation with its principal offices at 501 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10018
("Assignee").
Background
A. Assignor is a Minnesota non-profit corporation and an organization described in
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation under Section
501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
B. In furtherance of its charitable, tax-exempt purposes, Assignor has caused the
formation of PLACE St. Louis Park Launch Equity, LLC ( “Borrower”). Borrower is a Minnesota
limited liability company formed to undertake the development and transformation of a brownfield
site on nine (9) parcels of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acres in the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, to create a sustainable mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development adjacent
the Wooddale LRT Station on the planned Southwest LRT/Green Line Extension ( the “Project”).
C. Pursuant to a loan agreement dated the date of this Assignment between Borrower and
Assignee (as may be amended, modified, or supplemented from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”)
and a promissory note dated the date of this Assignment made by Borrower payable to the order of
Assignee (as may be amended, modified, extended, and renewed from time to time, the “Note”),
Assignee is providing to Borrower a loan in the principal amount of $2,733,0001.00 to finance
predevelopment costs incurred by Borrower in connection with the Project (the “Loan”).
D. In cooperation with Assignor, the City of St. Louis Park, with offices at 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 (the “City”), has applied for and received
from the Metropolitan Council, with offices at 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(the “Council”), a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Transit-Oriented Development
(LCA-TOD) Grant in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (the “Grant”), as more fully described in and
subject to the terms and conditions of a Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant Agreement
between the City and the Council, Grant No. SG-03132 (the “Grant Agreement”).
E. The City has agreed to distribute the proceeds of the Grant to Assignor to assist with
development activities and to reimburse for grant-eligible costs incurred in connection with the
Project, as more fully described in and subject to the terms and conditions of a LCA-TOD
Development Sub-Grantee Agreement dated November 16, 2016, between the City and Assignor (the
“Sub-Grant Agreement”).
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 4
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
F. As security for the payment of all liabilities due or to become due with respect to the
Loan, including without limitation the payment all amounts due or to become due under the Note,
and as security for the performance of all other present and future obligations of Borrower under the
Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan Agreement) (collectively,
the “Indebtedness”), Assignor has agreed to assign to Assignee, and grant to Assignee a first priority
security interest in and lien upon, all of its present and future right, title, interest in and to the Grant
and all payments due or to become due on account of the Grant, and all proceeds thereof.
Terms
In consideration of the foregoing and of the covenants and mutual agreements set forth below,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged,
Assignor agrees with Assignee as follows:
1. Assignment. To secure the full and prompt payment, performance, and discharge of
the Indebtedness, Assignor assigns and transfers to Assignee, and grants to Assignee a first priority
security interest in and lien upon, all of Assignor's present and future right, title and interest in and to
the Grant and all payments due or to become due on account of the Grant, and all proceeds thereof
(the “Collateral”). The foregoing assignment includes, without limitation, to the fullest extent
permitted by applicable law, (i) the right of Assignor to compel or receive payments on account of
the Grant, and (ii) all other rights and remedies arising under or in connection with the Grant or
existing by virtue of its right to compel or receive payments on account of the Grant.
2. Grant Payments. So long as any portion of the Indebtedness remains outstanding and
unpaid, Assignor shall receive and hold in trust for the benefit of Assignee any and all payments on
account of the Grant received by Assignor and, within ten (10) days after receipt, shall remit such
payments directly to Assignee for application against the Indebtedness, as more fully provided in and
subject to the terms and conditions of the Note.
3. No Liability. Nothing contained in this Assignment or otherwise shall be construed
as imposing any liability or responsibility in any manner whatsoever on Assignee to Assignor or to
any other party (including, without limitation, the City and the Council) for the performance of any
action, matter or thing done or performed or to be done or performed by Assignor or for any other
failure to keep or perform any of the covenants or agreements of Assignor under or in connection
with the Grant.
4. Covenants and Agreements. So long as any portion of the Indebtedness is or remains
outstanding and unpaid, Assignor covenants and agrees with Assignee as follows:
(a) Without the prior written consent of Assignee, Assignor shall not alter or
amend, or consent to any alterations or amendments of, the Grant, or waive, excuse, condone, or in
any manner release or discharge any covenants, obligations, or undertakings of the City or the Council
with respect to the Grant.
(b) Assignor shall observe and perform all of the covenants, obligations, and
undertakings imposed upon it under or in connection with the Grant.
(c) Promptly after receipt, Assignor shall provide Assignee with copies of all
notices (including without limitation notices of withdrawal or termination) and other communications
received by Assignor under or in connection with the Grant.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 5
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
(d) Assignor shall not cause, permit, or take any action, directly or indirectly, that
could impair or adversely affect the value of the Collateral, or the interest of Assignee in the Collateral.
(e) Assignor shall not create, incur, assume, allow, or permit to exist any pledge,
lien, charge or other encumbrance of any nature upon the Collateral or any portion thereof, other
than liens and encumbrances in favor of Assignee.
(f) Assignor shall defend the Collateral against all claims and demands of all
persons or entities at any time claiming the same or any interest in the Collateral adverse to Assignee.
5. Representations and Warranties. Assignor represents and warrants to Assignee that:
(i) Assignor has made no prior assignment of the Collateral and has not granted any other security
interest in or lien upon the Collateral; and (ii) Assignor has the power and authority to enter into this
Assignment and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Assignment, so
that this Assignment is a valid and legally binding obligation of Assignor, enforceable in accordance
with its terms. Assignor further represents and warrants that it is a non-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Minnesota and that its state organizational identification number is
1720121-2.
6. Further Assurances.
(a) Assignor shall execute and deliver all further documents and instruments
and take all further actions that may be necessary or that Assignee may request in order to (i) perfect
and protect the assignment and security interest granted or created, or purported to be granted or
created, by this Assignment, (ii) enable Assignee to exercise and enforce its rights and remedies under
this Assignment, or (iii) otherwise accomplish the purposes of this Assignment.
(b) Assignor irrevocably authorizes Assignee at any time and from time to time
to file, at Assignor’s expense, any financing statements and amendments to financing statements
describing the Collateral, and containing any other information required by part 5 of Article 9 of
the Uniform Commercial Code for the sufficiency or filing office acceptance of any financing
statement or amendment
7. Power of Attorney. Assignor irrevocably constitutes and appoints Assignee as its true
and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution, in Assignor’s name and place to execute,
acknowledge, deliver, swear to, file and record at the appropriate public offices, such certificates,
instruments and documents as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the provision of this
Assignment.
8. Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute
an “Event of Default” under this Assignment: (i) the occurrence of an Event of Default under and as
defined in the Loan Agreement; (ii) the failure of Assignor to observe and perform any of its covenants
and agreements in this Assignment (subject, however, to any applicable notice and cure periods in the
Loan Agreement); or (iii) any representation or warranty of Assignor in this Assignment proves to be
false or misleading in any material respect. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default and at any
time thereafter, Assignee may exercise all rights and remedies available under the Loan Agreement
or the Note or otherwise available at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise, each of which may be
exercised at any time and from time to time, consecutively or concurrently, and without limitation of
the foregoing, Assignee may demand and collect and be entitled to receive all payments due or to
become due under or on account of the Grant.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 6
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
9. Rights of Assignee. Nothing contained in this Assignment shall prejudice or affect
the right of Assignee to take or to commence and prosecute any action which it may deem advisable
or which it may be entitled to take or to commence and prosecute for the collection of the Indebtedness
or prejudice any other rights of Assignee.
10. Miscellaneous.
(a) All notices, requests, consents, waivers, and other communications given
under any of the provisions of this Assignment shall be in writing (or by fax, e-mail, or similar
electronic transmission confirmed in writing) and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made
(i) when delivered by hand, or (ii) when delivered by recognized overnight delivery service, or (iii) if
given by mail, three (3) days after deposited in the mails by certified mail, return receipt requested,
sufficient postage prepaid, or (iv) if given by fax, e-mail, or similar electronic transmission, when sent
and receipt has been confirmed, addressed as stated below, or to such other address as the addressee
may have specified in a notice duly given to the other addressees.
To Assignee:
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
501 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10018
Attn: Patrick Maher, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
(212) 455-9861 FAX: (212) 682-8608
E-MAIL: pmaher@lisc.org
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 7
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
To Assignor:
PLACE
100 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Attn: Chris Velasco, Executive Director
(612) 309-3889 FAX: (612) ___-____
E-MAIL: chris@welcometoplace.org
(b) This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in all respects in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota (without regard to principles of conflicts of
law).
(c) This Assignment may not be modified, amended, or otherwise altered, except
by written documents executed by Assignor and Assignee.
(d) This Assignment shall be binding upon Assignor and its successors and assigns,
and shall inure to the benefit of Assignee and its successors and assigns.
(e) The titles and captions of this Assignment are for convenience of reference only
and shall not affect the interpretation or construction of this Assignment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor has executed this Collateral Assignment and Security
Agreement (Metropolitan Council Grant) as of the day and year first above written.
PLACE
By: ____________________
Name:
Title:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 8
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
Consent and Agreement
The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”), in order to induce Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (“Assignee”) to provide to PLACE ( “Assignor”) a loan in the principal amount of
$2,733,001.00 (the “Loan”), consents to and agrees to be bound by the foregoing collateral
assignment and security agreement (the “Assignment”) and certifies to and agrees with Assignee as
follows:
1. The City has applied for and received from the Metropolitan Council (the “Council”)
a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Transit-Oriented Development (LCA-TOD) Grant
in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (the “Grant”), as more fully described in and subject to the terms and
conditions of a Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant Agreement between the City and the
Council, Grant No. SG-03132 (the “Grant Agreement”).
2. The City has agreed to distribute the proceeds of the Grant to Assignor to assist with
development activities and to reimburse for grant-eligible costs, as more fully described in and subject
to the terms and conditions of a LCA-TOD Development Sub-Grantee Agreement dated November
16, 2016, between the City and Assignor (the “Sub-Grant Agreement”)
3. The Grant Agreement and the Sub-Grant Agreement are full force and effect. The
Assignor has satisfied all conditions under or applicable to the Grant and, to the knowledge of the
City, Assignor is not in default under or with respect to the Grant.
4. The City agrees that it shall not alter or amend, or consent to any alterations or
amendments of, the Grant, without the prior written consent of Assignee.
5. The City agrees that it shall give written notice to Assignee of any default by
Assignor under or with respect to the Grant and that it shall permit Assignee the right and
opportunity to cure and correct any default within a period of thirty (30) days afte r written notice
of such default to Assignee, with such additional periods of time as may be required to cure or
correct any default if such default cannot be cured or corrected within such period of thirty (30)
days, so long as Assignee commences with such period of thirty (30) days to cure or correct such
default and thereafter endeavors diligently and continuously to cure or correct such default;
provided, however, that Assignee shall have no obligation to cure or correct any default and that
Assignee’s cure or correction of a default in one instance shall not create any obligation on the part
of Assignee to cure or correct any default in any other instance.
.
This consent and agreement does not, and shall not be construed to, relieve Assignor from its
obligations under or in connection with the Grant.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 9
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this consent and agreement to be duly
executed as of the ___ day of __________, 2017.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: ____________________________
Name:
Title:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 10
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
LISC P.A. No. 47336-0002
(LMS Loan No. 13058)
COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
(HCHRA Grant)
COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (this "Assignment"),
made as of the __ day of ______, 2017, from PLACE, a Minnesota non-profit corporation with its
principal offices at 100 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
("Assignor") to LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION, a New York not-for-profit
corporation with its principal offices at 501 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10018
("Assignee").
Background
A. Assignor is a Minnesota non-profit corporation and an organization described
in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation under
Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
B. In furtherance of its charitable, tax-exempt purposes, Assignor has caused the
formation of PLACE St. Louis Park Launch Equity, LLC ( “Borrower”). Borrower is a
Minnesota limited liability company formed to undertake the development and transformation
of a brownfield site on nine (9) parcels of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acres in the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, to create a sustainable mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-
oriented development adjacent the Wooddale LRT Station on the planned Southwest
LRT/Green Line Extension ( the “Project”).
C. Pursuant to a loan agreement dated the date of this Assignment between
Borrower and Assignee (as may be amended, modified, or supplemented from time to time,
the “Loan Agreement”) and a promissory note dated the date of this Assignment made by
Borrower payable to the order of Assignee (as may be amended, modified, extended, and
renewed from time to time, the “Note”), Assignee is providing to Borrower a loan in the
principal amount of $2,733,0001.00 to finance predevelopment costs incurred by Borrower
in connection with the Project (the “Loan”).
D. In cooperation with Assignor, the City of St. Louis Park, with offices at 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 (the “City”), has applied for and
received from the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, with offices at
701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 (“HCHRA”), a Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) Grant in the amount of $750,000.00 (the “Grant”), as more
fully described in and subject to the terms and conditions of a ________________________
Grant Agreement between the City and HCHRA, Grant No.A165443 (the “Grant
Agreement”).
E. The City has agreed to distribute the proceeds of the Grant to Assignor to assist
with development activities and to reimburse for grant-eligible costs incurred in connection
with the Project, as more fully described in and subject to the terms and conditions of a
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 11
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
________________ Sub-Grantee Agreement dated ______________, ____, between the City
and Assignor (the “Sub-Grant Agreement”).
F. As security for the payment of all liabilities due or to become due with respect
to the Loan, including without limitation the payment all amounts due or to become due under
the Note, and as security for the performance of all other present and future obligations of
Borrower under the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan
Agreement) (collectively, the “Indebtedness”), Assignor has agreed to assign to Assignee, and
grant to Assignee a first priority security interest in and lien upon, all of its present and future
right, title, interest in and to the Grant and all payments due or to become due on account of
the Grant, and all proceeds thereof.
Terms
In consideration of the foregoing and of the covenants and mutual agreements set forth below,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged,
Assignor agrees with Assignee as follows:
1. Assignment. To secure the full and prompt payment, performance, and discharge of
the Indebtedness, Assignor assigns and transfers to Assignee, and grants to Assignee a first priority
security interest in and lien upon, all of Assignor's present and future right, title and interest in and to
the Grant and all payments due or to become due on account of the Grant, and all proceeds thereof
(the “Collateral”). The foregoing assignment includes, without limitation, to the fullest extent
permitted by applicable law, (i) the right of Assignor to compel or receive payments on account of
the Grant, and (ii) all other rights and remedies arising under or in connection with the Grant or
existing by virtue of its right to compel or receive payments on account of the Grant.
2. Grant Payments. So long as any portion of the Indebtedness remains outstanding and
unpaid, Assignor shall receive and hold in trust for the benefit of Assignee any and all payments on
account of the Grant received by Assignor and, within ten (10) days after receipt, shall remit such
payments directly to Assignee for application against the Indebtedness, as more fully provided in and
subject to the terms and conditions of the Note.
3. No Liability. Nothing contained in this Assignment or otherwise shall be construed
as imposing any liability or responsibility in any manner whatsoever on Assignee to Assignor or to
any other party (including, without limitation, the City and HCHRA) for the performance of any
action, matter or thing done or performed or to be done or performed by Assignor or for any other
failure to keep or perform any of the covenants or agreements of Assignor under or in connection
with the Grant.
4. Covenants and Agreements. So long as any portion of the Indebtedness is or remains
outstanding and unpaid, Assignor covenants and agrees with Assignee as follows:
(a) Without the prior written consent of Assignee, Assignor shall not alter or
amend, or consent to any alterations or amendments of, the Grant, or waive, excuse, condone, or in
any manner release or discharge any covenants, obligations, or undertakings of the City or HCHRA
with respect to the Grant.
(b) Assignor shall observe and perform all of the covenants, obligations, and
undertakings imposed upon it under or in connection with the Grant.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 12
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
(c) Promptly after receipt, Assignor shall provide Assignee with copies of all
notices (including without limitation notices of withdrawal or termination) and other communications
received by Assignor under or in connection with the Grant.
(d) Assignor shall not cause, permit, or take any action, directly or indirectly, that
could impair or adversely affect the value of the Collateral, or the interest of Assignee in the Collateral.
(e) Assignor shall not create, incur, assume, allow, or permit to exist any pledge,
lien, charge or other encumbrance of any nature upon the Collateral or any portion thereof, other
than liens and encumbrances in favor of Assignee.
(f) Assignor shall defend the Collateral against all claims and demands of all
persons or entities at any time claiming the same or any interest in the Collateral adverse to Assignee.
5. Representations and Warranties. Assignor represents and warrants to Assignee that:
(i) Assignor has made no prior assignment of the Collateral and has not granted any other security
interest in or lien upon the Collateral; and (ii) Assignor has the power and authority to enter into this
Assignment and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Assignment, so
that this Assignment is a valid and legally binding obligation of Assignor, enforceable in accordance
with its terms. Assignor further represents and warrants that it is a non-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Minnesota and that its state organizational identification number is
1720121-2.
6. Further Assurances.
(a) Assignor shall execute and deliver all further documents and instruments
and take all further actions that may be necessary or that Assignee may request in order to (i) perfect
and protect the assignment and security interest granted or created, or purported to be granted or created,
by this Assignment, (ii) enable Assignee to exercise and enforce its rights and remedies under this
Assignment, or (iii) otherwise accomplish the purposes of this Assignment.
(b) Assignor irrevocably authorizes Assignee at any time and from time to time
to file, at Assignor’s expense, any financing statements and amendments to financing statements
describing the Collateral, and containing any other information required by part 5 of Article 9 of the
Uniform Commercial Code for the sufficiency or filing office acceptance of any financing statement
or amendment
7. Power of Attorney. Assignor irrevocably constitutes and appoints Assignee as its true
and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution, in Assignor’s name and place to execute,
acknowledge, deliver, swear to, file and record at the appropriate public offices, such certificates,
instruments and documents as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the provision of this
Assignment.
8. Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute
an “Event of Default” under this Assignment: (i) the occurrence of an Event of Default under and as
defined in the Loan Agreement; (ii) the failure of Assignor to observe and perform any of its covenants
and agreements in this Assignment (subject, however, to any applicable notice and cure periods in the
Loan Agreement); or (iii) any representation or warranty of Assignor in this Assignment proves to be
false or misleading in any material respect. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default and at any
time thereafter, Assignee may exercise all rights and remedies available under the Loan Agreement
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 13
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
or the Note or otherwise available at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise, each of which may be
exercised at any time and from time to time, consecutively or concurrently, and without limitation of
the foregoing, Assignee may demand and collect and be entitled to receive all payments due or to
become due under or on account of the Grant.
9. Rights of Assignee. Nothing contained in this Assignment shall prejudice or affect
the right of Assignee to take or to commence and prosecute any action which it may deem advisable
or which it may be entitled to take or to commence and prosecute for the collection of the Indebtedness
or prejudice any other rights of Assignee.
10. Miscellaneous.
(a) All notices, requests, consents, waivers, and other communications given
under any of the provisions of this Assignment shall be in writing (or by fax, e-mail, or similar
electronic transmission confirmed in writing) and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made
(i) when delivered by hand, or (ii) when delivered by recognized overnight delivery service, or (iii) if
given by mail, three (3) days after deposited in the mails by certified mail, return receipt requested,
sufficient postage prepaid, or (iv) if given by fax, e-mail, or similar electronic transmission, when sent
and receipt has been confirmed, addressed as stated below, or to such other address as the addressee
may have specified in a notice duly given to the other addressees
To Assignee:
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
501 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10018
Attn: Patrick Maher, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
(212) 455-9861 FAX: (212) 682-8608
E-MAIL: pmaher@lisc.org
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 14
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
To Assignor:
PLACE
100 Portland Avenue South, Suite 100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Attn: Chris Velasco, Executive Director
(612) 309-3889 FAX: (612) ___-____
E-MAIL: chris@welcometoplace.org
(b) This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in all respects in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota (without regard to principles of conflicts of
law).
(c) This Assignment may not be modified, amended, or otherwise altered, except
by written documents executed by Assignor and Assignee.
(d) This Assignment shall be binding upon Assignor and its successors and assigns,
and shall inure to the benefit of Assignee and its successors and assigns.
(e) The titles and captions of this Assignment are for convenience of reference only
and shall not affect the interpretation or construction of this Assignment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor has executed this Collateral Assignment and Security
Agreement (HCHRA Grant) as of the day and year first above written.
PLACE
By: ____________________
Name:
Title:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 15
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
Consent and Agreement
The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”), in order to induce Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (“Assignee”) to provide to PLACE ( “Assignor”) a loan in the principal amount of
$2,733,001.00 (the “Loan”), consents to and agrees to be bound by the foregoing collateral
assignment and security agreement (the “Assignment”) and certifies to and agrees with Assignee as
follows:
1. The City has applied for and received from the Hennepin County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (“HCHRA”) a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Grant in the amount
of $750,000.00 (the “Grant”), as more fully described in and subject to the terms and conditions of a
________________________ Grant Agreement between the City and HCHRA, Grant No.
__________ (the “Grant Agreement”).
2. The City has agreed to distribute the proceeds of the Grant to Assignor to assist with
development activities and to reimburse for grant-eligible costs, as more fully described in and subject
to the terms and conditions of a ___________________ Sub-Grantee Agreement dated
______________, ____,, between the City and Assignor (the “Sub-Grant Agreement”)
3. The Grant Agreement and the Sub-Grant Agreement are full force and effect. The
Assignor has satisfied all conditions under or applicable to the Grant and, to the knowledge of the
City, Assignor is not in default under or with respect to the Grant.
4. The City agrees that it shall not alter or amend, or consent to any alterations or
amendments of, the Grant, without the prior written consent of Assignee.
5. The City agrees that it shall give written notice to Assignee of any default by
Assignor under or with respect to the Grant and that it shall permit Assignee the right and
opportunity to cure and correct any default within a period of thirty (30) days after written notice
of such default to Assignee, with such additional periods of time as may be required to cure or
correct any default if such default cannot be cured or corrected within such period of thirty (30)
days, so long as Assignee commences with such period of thirty (30) days to cure or correct such
default and thereafter endeavors diligently and continuously to cure or correct such default;
provided, however, that Assignee shall have no obligation to cure or correct any default and that
Assignee’s cure or correction of a default in one instance shall not create any obligation on the part
of Assignee to cure or correct any default in any other instance.
.
This consent and agreement does not, and shall not be construed to, relieve Assignor from its
obligations under or in connection with the Grant.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4k) Page 16
Title: Collateral Assignment and Security Agreements – PLACE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this consent and agreement to be duly
executed as of the ___ day of __________, 2017.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: ____________________________
Name:
Title:
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4l
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 7, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne,
Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT: Henry Pan, Community Development Intern
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Jay Hall, Utilities Superintendant
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of October 5, 2016
The minutes were approved on a vote of 3-0-2 (Carper and Peilen abstained).
Commissioner Tatalovich arrived at 6:16 p.m.
3. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for Communication Tower
Location: 8300 West Franklin Avenue
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 16-41-CUP
Henry Pan, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. He explained that
the purpose of the tower is to collect signals from water meters recently installed in houses
in the Westwood Hills neighborhood.
Mr. Pan described the proposed tower.
Mr. Pan reviewed the zoning analysis.
Mr. Pan discussed the outreach efforts which included a neighborhood meeting held on
November 29, 2016.
Mr. Pan spoke about an inquiry received from a nearby resident who works at the Minn.
Department of Natural Resources. The resident is concerned that the project would be
inconsistent with agreements between the city, state and federal governments over the use
of the land. City staff are following up with the DNR for clarification and expect to have
an answer at the City Council meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2016
Commissioner Peilen asked what is planned if the DNR finds the tower to be inconsistent
with policies.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said staff is confident that the proposal
won’t violate any agreements. If it is found there are concerns from the DNR the work
could be removed and the city would look for another site.
Clint Pires, city Chief Information Officer, said there are very few sites in this part of town
which accommodate the need. He stated this site is the second highest point in Hennepin
County. He said they would really be stretched to find another location that would work as
well as this site. He added that fiber is already in place near the Brick House.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was a concern about the pole and bird paths.
Jay Hall, city Utilities Supervisor, said staff doesn’t believe there are any issues. He
discussed a temporary pole on site which is hoisted on a lift. The temporary pole is at tree
level and staff haven’t seen any issues with birds.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was a plan for any type of bird survey once the pole
is erected within the wildlife area.
Mr. Hall said they will monitor it to make sure it is safe for wildlife.
Mr. Pires spoke about an existing Xcel pole which has been on the site for decades. There
have been no bird issues with that pole.
Commissioner Carper asked about the other sites needed for collection of signals.
Mr. Pires noted the locations of the other sites.
Commissioner Carper asked about lighting and activities at the Brick House.
Mr. Pires addressed lighting and frequency of functions at the Brick House.
Commissioner Kanne asked about the cost of abandoning the project if there is a problem
with the DNR.
Mr. Walther said he assumes that the pole could be reused in another location.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Erwin Grossman, 1640 Virginia Ave. S., stated that he is a radio amateur. He said he and
Mr. Pires spoke previously about power and frequency.
Mr. Hall said that the antenna is a receiver only. Transmitters are installed in city houses.
These transmitters are 900 MHz.
Mr. Grossman stated that the antenna won’t be a big issue. He said that it is a very low
profile antenna. He said he thinks it is a great idea and he hopes it works out for the city.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4l) Page 3
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2016
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Peilen made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to allow a 70-foot communication tower located at 8300 W. Franklin Ave.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
The study session began at 6:35 p.m.
1. Vision/Comprehensive Plan Update
Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, provided information on the Comprehensive Plan
update process. Staff will be working with the Commission on the community input
process for the plan. Staff is starting to work on demographics, housing and transportation
sections of the plan.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added that staff will probably give a
presentation to the Commission on sections of the existing plan as an introduction for the
update.
Ms. McMonigal discussed the process for the Community Visioning Process. Next
Generation, headed by Rebecca Ryan, has been hired to assist in the process starting in
January through the spring. She said the process will include town hall meetings,
training/neighborhood conversations, Facebook live meetings, on-line surveys and input at
community events. Representatives from all city commissions will be invited to the
trainings. An eight member Vision Steering Committee will work with Ms. Ryan to lead
the process.
2. 2016 Annual Report
Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, asked if the Commission is in agreement with the 2017
work plan.
Commissioner Peilen requested adding zoning changes as a result of construction at 2853
Inglewood. Mr. Walther spoke about councilmember discussions on this matter. At the
request of the Council, Jennifer Monson, Planner, has prepared a report for the December
12 Council study session titled History of Housing Code Research and Zoning
Amendments 2006-2016.
Commissioners asked that the section titled Projects in the Works be replaced with Under
Consideration.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 4l) Page 4
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2016
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to take testimony and then close public hearing. Motion
to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project No. 4017-2000
for the 2017 Connect the Park project, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing
advertisement for bids for this project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue implementation of the
City’s Connect the Park initiative?
SUMMARY: The Engineering Department is proposing to undertake the following Connect the
Park sidewalk, bikeway, and trail projects this year. These segments are included in the Connect
the Park Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The segments listed in this report represent various
standalone segments not adjacent to the City’s annual pavement management project in the
Sorensen Neighborhood and along Utica Avenue. Sidewalks associated with the annual pavement
management project will be discussed as a separate agenda item later in the meeting.
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year CIP to add sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout the
community. To date the City has constructed 4.8 miles of sidewalks, 1.6 miles of trails and 6.2
miles of bikeways as part of the Connect the Park CIP. Overall this represents 38%, 47% and 19%
(respectfully) of the segments in the Connect the Park CIP.
2017 will be the third year of sidewalk and trail construction and the second year of installing
bikeway in the community. This report will provide an overview of standalone bikeway, sidewalk,
and trail construction segments for 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan for 2017. The project cost estimate for this Connect the Park project is
$1,515,000. Funding will be provided by General Obligation Bonds. Additional information
related to funding can be found in the remainder of the report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2017 Connect the Park Map
Resolution for Improvement Project
Public Feedback
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
DISCUSSION
PROJECT UPDATE: The following summary will cover the topics and questions that were
discussed at the city council study session on January 9, 2017.
In addition, the final design meeting was held on January 12, 2017 for all stand-alone 2017 Connect
the Park segments. This meeting did not feature a staff presentation. The intent of the meeting was
to share staff recommended designs and receive feedback from attendees. 14 people attended the
meeting. Feedback received from residents throughout the public process is attached to this report.
See the following “Background” sections of this report for additional information on each
proposed sidewalk, trail and bikeway segment. These sections contain information on the proposed
design, maintenance responsibilities, impacts (trees, retaining walls, etc.), costs, staff
recommendations and resident feedback.
The following items were discussed at the city council study session on January 9, 2017:
Barry Street Sidewalk from Highway 100 to 26th Street
Based on public feedback, design considerations, and construction impacts, staff is recommending
construction of the south side of Barry Street from Highway 100 to 28th Street.
This proposed segment completes the missing link of sidewalk between 28th Street and Highway
100 Frontage Road. In order to facilitate safer pedestrian crossings of Barry Street, staff is
recommending installing a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon near the Benilde-St. Margaret’s
egress drive.
Staff recommendations for sidewalk installation were made based on a number factors. The
following is the information that staff used to reach our recommendation for this sidewalk
segment:
A sidewalk on the north and east side of Barry Street was analyzed and determined that the
uncertainty of construction impacts to the health of the large bur oak tree and the removal
of the vast majority of the mature year round vegetation that screens Benilde-St. Margaret’s
parking lot from Barry Street is a significant impact.
There is less impacts to existing trees if the sidewalk were constructed on the south and
west side of Barry street
The cost of the sidewalk on the south and west side of Barry Street is lower than the cost
for the north and east side.
Utica Avenue Trail from 27th Street to North Cedar Trail
Council expressed concern with the location of the Highway 100 southbound on ramp and the
location/design of the sidewalk from the Highway 100 pedestrian overpass. Neither of these
design issues are planned to be resolved with this project. However, City staff is continuing to
work with MnDOT to find a long term solution to this location.
28th Street Bikeway from Virginia Ave to Utica Avenue Ave
Council raised concern about removal of parking along 28th Street near Ainsworth Park with the
proposed design. To address parking needs at Ainsworth Park, two parking bays are proposed to
be constructed that will allow parking in this area. These parking bays will accommodate 18 cars.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
PROPOSED 2017 CONNECT THE PARK PROJECTS
Table 1 summarizes each project outlined in this report and the recommendations from staff on
which segments to construction. Overall, there are 3,617 feet (0.69 miles) of sidewalk, 1,293 feet
(0.24 miles) of new trail and 15,068 feet (2.85 miles) of bikeway recommended for construction
in 2017.
Table 1: 2017 Connect the Park Projects
Project
Location Project Extents Length
(ft) Project Costs Staff
Recommendation
Sidewalks
Xenwood
Avenue 27th Street to 29th Street 1,300 $370,000 Construct
36 1/2th
Street
Monterey Drive to Excelsior
Blvd 1,457 $157,000 Construct
Barry Street Highway 100 to 26th Street 860
North/ East Side:
$241,000
South/ West Side:
$186,000
Construct south
and west side
Trail
Utica Avenue 27th Street to North Cedar
Trail 1,293 $377,000 Construct
Bikeways
28th Street
Virginia Ave to Utica
Avenue Ave (including
parking bays)
9,625 $320,000 Construct
Texas
Avenue
Minnetonka Blvd to 28th
Street 1,253 $42,000 Construct
Texas
Avenue,
Lake Street,
Rhode Island
Avenue
Highway 7 to Cedar Lake
Regional Trail 2,890 $44,000 Construct
33rd Street Virginia Ave to Rhode
Island Ave 1,300 $19,000 Construct
BACKGROUND: Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add
bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. As part of Vision St. Louis Park in
2007, the city worked with community members to create an Active Living Sidewalks and Trails
plan.
The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of
sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and
accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. This is achieved by creating a system
plan that provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and bikeways every ½-mile in order to
improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
In addition to the spacing, Connect the Park seeks to address gaps located within existing sidewalk
infrastructure. These gap segments are sidewalks that exist on part of a block, but end before
connecting to another cross street or continuing sidewalk segment.
The final project scope for each segment is outlined in the following pages of this report. Each
narrative highlights recommendations from staff.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: City staff held several public open houses, facilitated presentations,
and on site resident visits to address specific concerns throughout 2016. Correspondence received
from the open houses and other forms of communication are attached to this report.
Kickoff Meetings
The first round of kickoff meetings for the 2017 Connect the Park project were held in August
2016. The intent of these meetings were to introduce nearby residents and community members to
the project.
The meeting for bikeways and trail was held on August 4, 2016 at St. Louis Park High School.
The meeting was attended by 21 people. Staff facilitated a presentation that covered high-level
topics including: the background of Connect the Park; bikeway facility types and associated
impacts; bikeway and trail construction; and project schedules.
The meeting for sidewalks was held on August 10, 2016 at St. Louis Park City Hall. The meeting
was attended by approximately 20 people. Staff facilitated a presentation about Connect the Park
background, design considerations, what to expect during construction, and project schedules.
Two Wheels on 28th
The City of St. Louis Park, with assistance from Hennepin County, put on a bikeway
demonstration project along 28th Street on September 18th from 1:00 – 4:00 pm. This event, called
Two Wheels on 28th, allowed community members to experience a temporary bikeway. White
duct tape and spray chalk was used to create bike lanes and bike symbols between the North Cedar
Lake Regional Trail and Birchwood Park. 179 people officially attended the event, and 131
surveys were received.
A summary of the event and feedback received was provided to the city council as a report on the
October 10, 2016 Study Session Agenda.
Preliminary Design Meetings
The second round of meetings was held in October and November 2016. The intent of those
meetings was to present preliminary designs for each project and gain feedback from attendees in
an open house format style meeting.
The preliminary design of the Utica Avenue trail was discussed in conjunction with the 2017
Pavement Management meeting on October 25. The bikeway meeting was held on November 17th,
and the sidewalk meeting was held on December 6. All meetings were held at St. Louis Park City
Hall. Between 20 and 30 people attended each meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
2017 Connect the Park Project
SIDEWALK SEGMENT: Xenwood Avenue – 27th Street to 29th Street
Project Overview: This sidewalk was not originally identified in the Connect the Park plan,
but was requested through a resident petition to complete an existing sidewalk gap. It is
proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk
segments.
Community Significance: Completing this gap will establish a continuous sidewalk
connection between 27th Street and Minnetonka Boulevard along Xenwood Avenue. In
addition it connects to the Birchwood Park Trail at 28th Street.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. Staff has
also met with several residents on site to discuss specific land & tree impact concerns.
Design: The sidewalk is proposed to be 5 feet wide and will feature a 5-6 foot boulevard on
the west side of Xenwood Avenue. The boulevard shrinks to 4 feet in areas to avoid trees and
to minimize impacts along the hill south of 28th Street. The trail approach west of 28th Street
is proposed to be reconstructed to better align with the crosswalk and sidewalk on the south
side of 28th. At 27th Street, an ADA pedestrian ramp will be constructed on the northwest
corner of the intersection to allow pedestrian movement to cross to the sidewalk on the east
side of Xenwood Avenue north of 27th Street. All existing pedestrian ramps approaching
intersections will be upgraded to ADA standards.
There are 6 trees that have been identified for removal along Xenwood Avenue for the
construction of this segment of sidewalk. There will be up to 110 feet of total retaining wall
needed to construct the sidewalk in front of several homes on Xenwood south of 28th Street.
Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood sidewalk and would be maintained by
residents for snow removal.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the sidewalk is $370,000.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the
other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments, with completion scheduled for late summer
2017.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
SIDEWALK SEGMENT: 36 1/2th Street – Monterey Drive to Excelsior Blvd
Project Overview: This sidewalk was identified in the Connect the Park Plan. It is planned
to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments.
Community Significance: This corridor features higher density residential, but currently
does not have a sidewalk. The installation of sidewalk on this street will connect two high
volume roads – Monterey Drive and Excelsior Boulevard – and will provide a safe, dedicated
pedestrian space to walk to destinations such as Wolfe Park, Excelsior & Grand, businesses
on Excelsior Blvd, and the Rec Center.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. Staff
has also met with several residents on site to discuss site specific concerns.
Design: This sidewalk is proposed to be 5 feet wide and will feature a 5 foot boulevard along
the north side of 36 1/2th Street. At the intersection of 36 1/2th and Monterey, the sidewalk
will pair with a proposed pedestrian crossing solution over Monterey. This is planned to
include a rapid rectangular flashing beacon (RRFB) and a bollard protected median refuge
area.
There are 9 trees that will need to be removed along 36 1/2th Street for the construction of
this segment of sidewalk.
Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the
City for snow removal.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the sidewalk is $157,000. This
includes $38,000 for easements necessary to build the sidewalk.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the
other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments. Construction of the sidewalk corridor is
planned to be completed by late summer 2017. The RRFB crossing over Monterey Drive
will be installed before June 1, 2017.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
SIDEWALK SEGMENT: Barry Street – Highway 100 to 26th Street
Project Overview: This sidewalk is identified in the Connect the Park plan. It is planned to
be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments.
Community Significance: This corridor is an important connection for the Fern Hill
neighborhood. Barry Street carries approximately 3,650 vehicles/day and abuts both Beth
El Synagogue and Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. This sidewalk will provide pedestrian
access from Fern Hill to sidewalks on the Highway 100 frontage road, which currently
connect to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail. In addition, the sidewalk and crossing
enhancement will provide crossing space for pedestrians year round.
Public Process: Staff has held three public open houses to discuss issues and concerns.
Staff have also met with residents from Princeton Court Townhomes, as well as
representatives from Beth-El and Benilde-St. Margaret’s, to discuss the sidewalk and
potential crossing enhancements. Concerns have focused on various impacts to trees and
landscaping, and potential multiple pedestrian crossings over Barry Street.
Design: Potential sidewalk designs for both sides of Barry Street have been created;
North and East Side: Sidewalk design on the east and north side of Barry Street would
feature a 5-foot sidewalk with a boulevard 4-5 feet wide. The sidewalk is proposed to
meander around a large oak tree that is located west of Princeton Court Townhomes and a
retaining wall in this location. This design would remove 15 trees, many of which are
located between Barry Street and the Benilde-St. Margaret’s main parking lot area. This
construction would also require the elimination of the existing berm in this location. Since
the berm and tree plantings were required as part of the Conditional Use Permit associated
with Benilde-St. Margaret’s, a variance may be needed. In addition, permanent easements
would be required from both Princeton Court Townhomes and Benilde-St. Margaret’s, as
there currently is not enough room to construct a sidewalk within city right-of-way.
South and West Side: Sidewalk design on the west and south side of Barry Street would
feature a 5-foot sidewalk with a boulevard 4-5 feet wide. This design would remove 8 trees
which are currently located between the Beth-El parking lot and Barry Street.
Impact comparisons between the two designs are shown in Table 2.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
Crossing Enhancements: There is an existing crosswalk over Barry Street located on the
west end of this sidewalk segment. This crosswalk connects the frontage road sidewalk to
the sidewalk leading to the pedestrian bridge over Highway 100. Staff is recommending
the installation of an RRFB to enhance the crossing location.
Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the
City for snow removal.
Cost: The cost of each sidewalk alternative:
Recommendation: Based on design considerations, staff is recommending constructing the
sidewalk on the south and east side for 2017 Connect the Park project.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the
other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments. Construction is planned to conclude in late
summer 2017.
North and East Side South and West Side
Trees Removed 15 8
Permanent Easement Needed Yes Yes
RRFB Crossing Yes Yes
Other Considerations Minor/Major PUD
Amendment variance
needed
Minor PUD/Variance
needed, eruv
considerations, light
relocations
Estimated Project Cost
$241,000 $186,000
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
TRAIL SEGMENT: Utica Avenue – 27th Street to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
Project Overview: This trail was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This project is
planned to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk
projects. However, there is right- of- way acquisition necessary which may delay the
construction start.
Community Significance: Utica Avenue features several high-density apartment buildings
and does not currently feature non-motorized infrastructure. A trail in this location will
connect the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to the Birchwood neighborhood, the pedestrian
bridge over Highway 100, and the proposed 27th Street bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss the project. Staff has heard
about the importance of the trail to connect to the regional trail system and to provide safer
pedestrian space in front of the apartment buildings in this area.
Design: The trail is proposed on the west side of Utica Avenue. It will be 8 feet wide and
will feature a 5-foot grass boulevard. It will connect to several existing trail segments located
in front of the Luther Auto dealership and the recently completed New Horizons daycare.
The pavement on the existing trail near Luther Auto is proposed to be reconstructed for
smoother biking & walking surface. The trail will need to cross over 23rd Street to access
the North Cedar Lake Trail, and retaining walls will be needed in this area.
There are 25 trees that will need to be removed to construct the trail along Utica Avenue,
most of them on the north side near the connection with the North Cedar Lake Trail. Several
permanent easements will be required – engineering staff is working through the acquisition
process.
Trail Type: This is proposed to be a community trail and would be maintained by the city
for snow removal.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the trail is $377,000. This
includes $112,000 for easements necessary to build the trail.
Construction Schedule: If easements can be acquired in a time-appropriate manner, this
trail is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
sidewalk segments. Construction is planned to conclude in fall 2017.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 11
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: 28th Street Corridor- Virginia Avenue to Highway 100
Project Overview: This 1.5 mile bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park
plan. This bikeway is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017
Connect the Park bikeway segments.
Segment Breakdown: This corridor has three distinct segments. Each of these
individual segment is described in detail on the following pages.
28th Street – Virginia Avenue to Louisiana Avenue
28th Street – Louisiana Avenue to Dakota Avenue
28th Street, Blackstone Ave, 27th Street – Dakota Ave to Utica Ave
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the entire 28th Street Corridor
from Virginia Avenue to Utica Avenue is estimated at $320,000. This estimate includes
the cost of the parking bays adjacent to Ainsworth Park.
Construction Schedule: Bikeway striping will be installed by mid-summer 2017.
INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT INFORMATION:
28th Street – Virginia Avenue to Louisiana Avenue
Community Significance: 28th Street west of Louisiana Avenue is a continuous, east-
west neighborhood corridor in the Texa Tonka neighborhood. This corridor connects to the
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail at Virginia Avenue and connects to several city parks. A
bikeway in this location will provide a safe connection for bicycle movement into the city
neighborhoods from the regional trail system.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. The
city also hosted the “Two Wheels on 28th” bike demonstration event on 28th Street to gain
more public feedback on the proposed bikeway. Feedback at the Two Wheels event showed
support for the bikeway implementation. Comments included concerns about loss of on-
street parking near Ainsworth Park and Texas Terrace Center, as well as sight line issues
near alleys.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 12
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
Design: Dedicated bike lanes are proposed for 28th Street west of Louisiana Avenue. 28th
Street in this segment is 35-ft wide between Texas Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, and 40-
ft wide between the regional trail and Texas Avenue. The street will feature 6-foot bike
lanes, 10.5-foot drive lanes, and a 1-foot buffer space between the drive and bike lanes.
Existing on-street parking is proposed to be removed for the majority of the corridor to
accommodate the bike lanes.
To address parking needs at Ainsworth Park, two parking bays are proposed to be
constructed that will allow parking in this area. These parking bays will accommodate 18
cars. A total of four (4) trees will need to be removed to construct the parking bay.
Adding curbside bike lanes will also help address sight line concerns. The street centerline
will shift to the north, thus providing improved sight lines from alleys and intersections.
As part of this effort, a flashing beacon is proposed to be installed to alert drivers of the at-
grade trail crossing over Virginia Avenue.
The bikeway will become a “Share the Road” design between Louisiana Avenue and
Maryland Avenue to maintain the existing eastbound left turn lane. Colored sharrow
markings are proposed to call attention to the bikeway in this location.
28th Street – Louisiana Avenue to Dakota Avenue
Community Significance: 28th Street between Louisiana Avenue and Dakota Avenue is
a continuous, east-west neighborhood corridor in the Bronx Park neighborhood. This
corridor connects several neighborhoods and provides a dedicated bikeway near Peter
Hobart Elementary School. A bikeway in this location will provide a safe connection for
bicycle movement into the city neighborhoods from the regional trail system.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. The
city also hosted the “Two Wheels on 28th” bike demonstration event on 28th Street to gain
more public feedback on the proposed bikeway. Some concerns were raised about parking
conditions on 28th Street near Louisiana Avenue.
Design: Dedicated bike lanes are proposed for 28th Street between Louisiana Avenue and
Dakota Avenue. 28th Street in this segment is 35-ft wide. The street will feature 6-foot bike
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 13
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
lanes, 10.5-foot drive lanes, and a 1-foot buffer space between drive and bike lanes.
Existing on-street parking is proposed to be removed in this segment to accommodate the
bike lanes.
28th Street, Blackstone Ave, 27th Street – Dakota Ave to Utica Ave
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This
segment is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
bikeway segments.
Community Significance: The corridor between Dakota Avenue and Utica Avenue is an
east-west neighborhood corridor in the Birchwood neighborhood. This corridor connects
several neighborhoods and provides a designated bikeway near Peter Hobart Elementary
School. It will also connect to the proposed Utica Avenue trail, which is proposed to
connect to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. The
city also hosted the “Two Wheels on 28th” bike demonstration event on 28th Street and at
Birchwood Park to gain more public feedback on the proposed bikeway. Comments
included concern over the original routing to Webster Avenue, street widths, and access
near Utica Avenue.
Design: Due to low traffic volumes in this area, this corridor will feature a “share the road”
situation. There are no parking restrictions proposed.
Since 28th Street ends at Alabama Avenue, the Connect the Park plan originally showed
the bikeway going through trails near Birchwood Park, along 28th Street and Webster
Avenue before connecting to 27th Street. After receiving public meeting feedback, staff
evaluated different routing options for the bikeway. Staff recommends placing the bikeway
on Blackstone Avenue due to low traffic volumes and easy wayfinding due to the “L”
intersection at 27th Street.
Staff had received suggestions to evaluate adding a trail through Birchwood Park between
28th and 27th Streets as part of the bikeway. This bikeway project scope does not include
a trail proposal in this location at this time; however, staff will be bringing the suggestion
forward for council discussion in a future Connect the Park planning meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 14
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: Texas Avenue – Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This
segment is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
bikeway segments.
Community Significance: Texas Avenue is a major north-south corridor that spans the
majority of St. Louis Park. The corridor between Minnetonka Boulevard and 28th Street
continues the bikeway on Texas Avenue south of Minnetonka Boulevard that will be
installed as a part of the reconstruction project. With bikeways proposed on 28th Street,
this short segment will connect North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to TexaTonka businesses
and the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss the project. Attendees have
noted its importance for north-south bicyclist movement. Concerns have included parking
reduction, wheelchair use on the street, and design considerations near the Minnetonka
Boulevard intersection.
Design: Dedicated bike lanes are proposed for Texas Avenue in this segment. The street
in this area is 44-ft wide. Since this width is too narrow to accommodate parking on both
sides of street, on-street parking is proposed to be restricted on the east side. The street will
feature 5-foot bike lanes, 11-foot drive lanes, one 8-foot parking lane on the west side, and
2-foot buffer spaces between the drive lanes and bike lanes. Near Minnetonka Blvd, the
existing concrete medians will be removed to add a southbound turn lane and establish
continual bike lanes through the intersection.
Cost: The current engineering cost estimate for this section of bikeway is $42,000.
Construction Schedule: Bikeway striping is anticipated to be installed by mid-summer
2017.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 15
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: Texas Ave, Lake Street, Rhode Island Avenue – Highway 7 to Cedar
Lake Regional Trail
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This
segment is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
bikeway segments.
Community Significance: Texas Avenue is a major north-south corridor that spans the
majority of St. Louis Park. The corridor between Highway 7 and the Cedar Lake Regional
Trail continues the bikeway on Texas Avenue north of Highway 7 that is part of the
reconstruction project. This segment will provide bicycling connections from the Cedar
Lake Regional Trail to Knollwood Mall and the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns.
Comments included concern about original routing on Brookview Drive, access area near
Texas Ave and Lake Street, and potential yard impacts.
Design: Texas Avenue from Highway 7 to Division Street will feature dedicated bike
lanes. On-street parking will be restricted in this segment. Texas Avenue between Division
Street and Lake Street is the city border with Hopkins. Due to this, the east side of the street
will feature dedicated bike lanes, while the west side will feature a “share the road”
condition. Parking will be restricted on the east side of Texas Avenue in this segment.
Connect the Park identified a bikeway along Brookview Avenue and Edgebrook Drive to
connect to the trail. After receiving public feedback, staff evaluated different routing
options for the bikeway. Staff recommends placing the bike route on Lake Street and Rhode
Island to avoid a large hill located at the corner of Edgebrook and Brookview. The bikeway
in this section would be a “Share the Road” situation and would not include parking
restrictions.
Cost: The engineering cost estimate for this section of bikeway is $44,000.
Construction Schedule: Several other projects are proposed in this area in 2018, including
a Hopkins-led reconstruction project on Texas Avenue, a MnDOT-led Highway 7
resurfacing project, and a Metropolitan Council-led force main project. Staff will continue
an open dialogue with these various agencies on the scheduling of this segment in order to
optimize costs and minimize impacts.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 16
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: 33rd Street – Virginia Avenue to Rhode Island Avenue
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan.
Community Significance: 33rd Street is an east-west corridor that crosses Texas Avenue
at a signal. This short section of bikeway would connect Oak Hill Park and Aquila Park,
and provide bike connection to the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns.
Design: Due to low traffic volumes, this segment is proposed as a “Share the Road”
bikeway. Sharrow pavement markings and associated signage would be installed. There
are no parking restrictions proposed.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for this section of bikeway is
$19,000. Refined estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: This segment is proposed to be installed in conjunction with the
Texas Avenue reconstruction project.
IMPACTS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF ENTRY: The proposed sidewalk and trail
construction activities for 2017 are challenging to build in a fully developed community. The
design and implementation of these segments require flexibility in design standards and creativity
in design alternatives. Each sidewalk segment is unique and requires its own set of design solutions
to minimize and mitigate impacts.
The designs presented to the residents and in this report acknowledge that tree loss and temporary
impacts to private property are two very sensitive issues. The proposed design endeavors to
balance the need for increased pedestrian facilities within the City with the impacts to residents
who live along these proposed sidewalks, trails and bikeways.
The Utica Avenue trail will require a number of permanent easements for installation of the trail.
Staff will to begin the acquisition process of said easements when this segment is approved. The
Barry Street sidewalk will also require permanent easements for construction.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 17
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
If these projects are approved, staff will continue to communicate with property owners to obtain
the easements and work with residents to obtain the right of entry documents necessary to
construct the various sidewalk and trails.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program for 2017. Funding will be provided by General Obligation Bonds.
Connect the Park! Estimated Costs Project No. 4017-2000
Construction Cost $1,011,000
Contingencies (10%) $101,000
Engineering & Administration (25%) $253,000
Easements $150,000
Total $1,515,000
ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION: Staff has not received additional comments regarding the
public hearing. Comments received during the public process about the projects are included with
this Council report.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue to work with property owners to acquire the appropriate
easements needed for sidewalk and trail construction. If construction schedules change, staff will
reach out to residents to notify about the changes.
The schedule to facilitate construction of these segments in 2017 is as follows:
Public Hearing and Project Report February 6, 2017
Council Awards Construction Bids March 2017
Construction April to November 2017
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 18
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 4017-2000
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4017-2000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Project Manager related to the 2017 Connect the Park project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 4017-2000 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The following segments are hereby established and ordered:
Xenwood Avenue – sidewalk ( West side between 27th Street and 29th Street)
36 1/2th Street – sidewalk (North side between Monterey Drive and Excelsior
Boulevard)
Barry Street – sidewalk (South/West side between 26th Street and Highway 100)
Utica Avenue – trail (West side between 27th Street and North Cedar Lake Regional
Trail)
28th Street corridor – bikeway (Between Virginia Avenue and Highway 100)
Texas Avenue – bikeway (Between Minnetonka Boulevard and 28th Street)
Texas Avenue corridor – bikeway (Between Highway 7 and Cedar Lake Regional
Trail)
33rd Street – bikeway (Between Utah Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue)
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved. The Project Manager is
allowed to make adjustments to these plans and specifications, such as narrowing the
width of sidewalk boulevards, in cases where special circumstances exist in the field, such
as the location of trees, provided that these adjustments will make a material difference in
addressing any special circumstances that may exist.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
City newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the
making of said improvements under said-approved plans and 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 bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent
of the amount of the bid.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 19
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project
6. The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council
shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail ProjectPage 20
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail ProjectPage 21
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail ProjectPage 22
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail ProjectPage 23
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail ProjectPage 24
1
Chris Iverson
From:Lee Snitzer <jsrulke@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:40 PM
To:Chris Iverson
Subject:sidewalk on Barry Street
Chris,
We are all for the idea but very concerned about the location. Ideally for us it would run adjacent to Beth El's parking
lot. We are concerned that if it ran on the North and West side of Barry Street it would hurt the trees planted along the
berm at BSM and would definitively hurt the big oak tree on the Princeton Ct. property. I hope that these facts will be
considered in your deliberations. Thank you.
Lee Snitzer
2504 Quentin Ct.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project Page 25
1
Chris Iverson
From:Keith Blevins <keith.blevins@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 29, 2016 5:04 PM
To:Chris Iverson
Subject:Re: Proposed bike route: Proj no. 4017-1000
Thanks, Chris.
I'll tell you that the traffic at the intersection of Utica and 27th street is very busy on a daily basis. and no one
stops at the stop sign no matter the direction they are headed. not even the cops. I've counted 100 cars in a row
that either ran it, or rolled it before one person came to a complete stop. I've counted twice. the other time I got
into the 50s before someone stopped. so, with that being said. I'd recommend not having the bike lane run
down 27th as if people are expecting drivers to stop at the stop signs they will be sorely mistaken. I saw a kid
almost get hit by a car on their bike either early this year or late last year - can't remember (turning onto utica
from 27th street, heading north on utica.
that intersection is a terrible place to route bikers. My advice would be to send them down 28th or 29th
(whichever one goes through, I think it is 29th), onto utica so when they cross through the intersection at 27th
and utica they are on the east side of utica as I think it will be far less likely anyone is hit by a car crossing at
that point compared to if they headed down 27th to utica.
furthermore. I live on the corner of 27th and utica and people always park in front of my house on 27th, so, I'd
love to have a bike lane block people from parking there, or they pull off the highway lost and sit in front of my
house using their maps on their phone (often time they drive away still looking at their phone) so, my incentive
is to have the route in front of my house... but, I think it will result in people getting hit by cars when they try to
cross to the east side of utica from 27th and no one stops. not good.
thanks
kb
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Chris Iverson <civerson@stlouispark.org> wrote:
Hi Keith,
Thanks for following up about the Connect The Park project. The kick-off meeting for the bikeway projects
went well, and we received good feedback from the attendees.
Staff is currently evaluating the best option for the transition route between 27th and 28th Streets. We received
feedback from attendees that the originally planned alignment through Birchwood Park and along Webster
Avenue should be revisited. We are evaluating several alternatives to route the bikeway along other streets,
including Birchwood, Alabama, Yosemite, and Xenwood Avenues.
We have collected traffic volumes along these streets to help with the routing decision. Although the route has
not yet been determined, all of the transition streets listed above - as well as 27th Street - have low enough
traffic volumes to justify placing the bikeway on the existing pavement.
We are planning to hold a preliminary design public meeting sometime in late September or early October. In
addition, we are currently planning a bikeway demonstration event on Sunday, September 18th. Staff &
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project Page 26
1
Chris Iverson
From:LEE ANN LANDSTROM <leealandstrom@prodigy.net>
Sent:Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:40 PM
To:Chris Iverson
Subject:bikeway in Birchwood area
We received your letter about the meeting. I want to share my observation and recommendation.
I live on the corner of 27th and Yosemite. I see the road users all day long. There is a decent amount
of traffic that uses 27th: cars coming/going to the 27th St. entrance onto Hwy 100. There is foot traffic
of people walking to the park. And plenty of dog walkers going down 27th to the unofficial cut-through
over the RR tracks to the dog park.
The sidewalk does NOT go all the way along 27th from Utica to Blackstone, so walkers are forced
onto the roadway.
It seems safer to have the bikers go one black south on Utica to 28th, and then head west to the
Park. Or use Vernon or Webster southbound to 28th. Why add bikers to the already busy mix of
walkers and cars on 27th??
-Lee Ann Landstrom
P.S. I happen to grow up on the corner of North St and Rhode Island in the South Oak Hill
neighborhood. I recommend the bike trail go down Rhode Island because the hill there is a lot less
steep than the hill on Brookview Drive.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project Page 27
1
Chris Iverson
From:Dale Longfellow <dale@cambridgeresearch.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2017 10:47 AM
To:Chris Iverson
Cc:Sue Sanger; Jake Spano
I apologize for hitting send before I completed my last sentence. This is my corrected version.
Hi Chris,
Since I will be out of the country and cannot attend the February 6 City Council session, I wanted to take a
minute to summarize my feelings about the potential location of the Barry Street sidewalk. First, let me thank
you for all the work you have put into the project, and being so willing to listen to what residents desire. You
are to be commended for your energy, efforts, and professionalism.
As a resident of one of the Princeton Court townhomes, I see first-hand on a daily basis the pedestrian and
motorized traffic that cross and use Barry Street. Of particular concern to me is the safety of the Benilde-St.
Margaret’s students. In the fall and spring it is not unusual to see over 100 students come and/go from BSM to
26th Street on a daily basis. Between the afternoon athletic training runs and morning meditation/clear your
mind classes I watch them pass. In the winter, I frequently attend BSM basketball games, and I know first-hand
how dangerous the 26th and Barry intersection can be. It seems that putting the Barry Street sidewalk on the
Beth El side of Barry puts the BSM students and other residents at much greater risk than on the Princeton
Court and BSM side of Barry. Having to cross Barry twice, no matter how well the cross walks are designed,
seems unnecessarily dangerous.
I realize that placing the sidewalk on the Princeton Court and BSM side of Barry is more expensive than the
alternative, and introduces the concern of tree loss both now and in the future should the large oak tree not
survive construction. For me the bottom line is that pedestrian safety trumps project cost or concerns over
tree loss. That is why I prefer the sidewalk be located on the east and north side of Barry Street.
With that said, I would like to request that the Princeton Court residents who overlook Barry receive as much
consideration as possible during construction and landscaping adjustments to address their privacy concerns.
Again thank you for all your work. As a Park resident I appreciate the difficult decision that you need to make
in regard to this sidewalk.
Dale Longfellow
2521 Quentin Court
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Mobile: 612-597-3923
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project Page 28
1
Chris Iverson
From:Beckstrand, JC <JC.Beckstrand@WillisTowersWatson.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 29, 2016 9:06 AM
To:Chris Iverson
Subject:Barry Street Sidewalk
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your note regarding the public meeting on the captioned…unfortunately, I cannot attend.
Not sure if this has been considered or not, but the safety in that area would be greatly enhanced if there was a slight
widening of the south side of the road opposite the Benilde parking lot entrance. As you likely know, this is a bad pinch
point, particularly during morning school start hours when vehicles are entering BSM from eastbound Barry. A slight
widening to afford a better flow when vehicles are turning left into BSM would be immensely helpful.
Additionally, during those same times, there are a lot of students crossing Barry from the Beth El Synagogue parking lot
to BSM. They cross, for safety reasons, behind the crossing guard just east of the BSM entrance…a crosswalk there
would be very helpful.
Just a few thoughts for you and the team…have a good meeting.
Best,
JC Beckstrand
Member, SLP Charter Commission
JC Beckstrand, Senior Vice President
Willis Towers Watson
Willis of Minnesota, Inc.
1600 Utica Ave. South, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55416
Direct: (763) 302-7190, Mobile: (612) 443-5775
jc.beckstrand@willistowerswatson.com
www.linkedin.com/in/jcbeckstrand
www.willistowerswatson.com
https://www.linkedin.com/company/willis-towers-watson
______________________________________________________________________
For information pertaining to Willis' email confidentiality and monitoring policy, usage restrictions, or for
specific company registration and regulatory status information, please visit
http://www.willis.com/email_trailer.aspx
We are now able to offer our clients an encrypted email capability for secure communication purposes. If you
wish to take advantage of this service or learn more about it, please let me know or contact your Client
Advocate for full details. ~W67897
______________________________________________________________________
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6a)
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Bikeways, Sidewalks, and Trail Project Page 29
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to take testimony and then close the public hearing.
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project
No. 4017-1000 for the 2017 Pavement Management project, approving plans and
specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for this project.
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project
No. 4017-2000 for the 2017 Connect the Park project, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids for this project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue implementation of the
City’s Pavement Management Program and the Connect the Park initiative?
SUMMARY: The Engineering Department is proposing the following projects for 2017.
Pavement Management
Annually the pavement management project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets.
This year, the streets to be rehabilitated are located in Pavement Management Area 4. The street
rehabilitation work consists of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and
replacing portions of concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sewer repairs and
watermain replacement.
Connect the Park
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways throughout the community. This year there are sidewalk segments in the Connect the
Park plan located in Pavement Management Area 4. In addition, there a number of sidewalk gap
segments under consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017. Franchise fees will be used to fund street rehabilitation,
water utility funds will be used for the watermain construction, storm and sanitary utility funds
will be used for storm and sanitary sewer repairs, and sidewalks will be funded using General
Obligation Bonds. The total cost estimate for the project is $6,954,708. Additional information
on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolutions for Improvement Projects (2)
Attachment #1- Sorensen & Birchwood Neighborhood
Sidewalk Recommendation Map
Attachment #2- January 17th Study Session Report
Attachment #3- Resident Correspondence- Sidewalks
Attachment #4- Resident Correspondence- Street Narrowing
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
DISCUSSION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This year’s project is located in Area 4 of the City’s eight pavement
management areas. It includes work in the Sorensen and Birchwood Neighborhoods.
The project includes street rehabilitation and additional infrastructure upgrades such as watermain
and water service replacement, storm sewer construction, and the installation of sidewalk. Other
streets will have random curb and gutter replacement and new asphalt surfacing.
SUMMARY: The following summary will cover the topics and questions that were discussed at
the city council study session on January 17th, 2017.
See the attached January 17th study session report for the individual evaluation sheets for each of
the 37 sidewalk segments. These individual evaluation sheets contain information on the proposed
sidewalk design, maintenance responsibilities, impacts (trees, retaining walls, etc.), cost, staff
recommendations and resident feedback. The attached study session report also contains
information on proposed street widths.
Feedback received from residents is attached to this report.
The following items were discussed at the city council study session on January 17th, 2017:
Sidewalk Maintenance Designation
The City Council had questions regarding the definition of designation for maintenance.
Specifically on segments 6, 15, 19 and 20. What follows is the definitions used to designate
maintenance responsibility for sidewalk segments:
Community Sidewalks are located on a street that is directly adjacent to an activity node.
They make major connections within the City and to neighboring cities’ systems. These
pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and/or trails) are spaced roughly at ¼-mile intervals across
the city. Most of these sidewalks are located along collector and arterial roadways that have
high traffic volumes. In general, activity nodes are community or area destinations such as;
the library, schools, retail areas, parks, regional trails, transit nodes, and places of worship.
Snow removal on community sidewalks are the city’s responsibility. Due to current snow
removal equipment, the city requires the sidewalk be at least 5 foot wide minimum (6 feet
preferred).
Neighborhood Sidewalks are all other sidewalks in the City. They provide accessibility
for pedestrians within the immediate area and feed into the Community Sidewalk system.
These sidewalks are generally located on lower volume roads.
Snow removal on neighborhood sidewalk are the property owner’s responsibility.
Staff has made recommendations for maintenance designation for each of the sidewalks under
consideration. Maintenance designation is a policy decision. Previous policy direction has been
to designate sidewalks that were in the Connect the Park CIP as Community Sidewalks and gap
sidewalk segments based on a review of the definitions. Discussion of the individual segments
and recommended designation is in the individual segments below.
Sidewalk Segment #37- Utica Avenue from 27th Street to 28th Street (West side)
This sidewalk segment is recommended for construction. City Council had questions about staff’s
recommendation for this segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
Staff recommendations for sidewalk installation were made based on a number factors. The
following is the information that staff used to reach its recommendation for this sidewalk segment:
The street has more than 150 vehicles travelling on it.
There is a multi- use trail being installed along the west side of Utica between 27th and the
Regional Trail. The proposed sidewalk will provide a safe connection for the homes on
this block and the block to the south to get to this trail and to the pedestrian bridge over
TH100.
There is limited impacts to trees and vegetation.
There is no need to construct retaining walls.
The cost per foot is one of the lower costs in the project.
For the reasons listed above, staff is recommending the construction of the proposed sidewalk
segment.
Sidewalk Segment #6- Webster Avenue from 33rd Street to Lake Street (East side)
This sidewalk segment is recommended for construction. This sidewalk is proposed to be
classified as a neighborhood sidewalk. Discussion by city council was whether this sidewalk
segment should be classified as a community sidewalk.
There is an existing sidewalk on the east side of Webster Avenue between Lake Street and 3161
Webster. This sidewalk is 4 feet wide.
The sidewalk on Webster Avenue is directly adjacent to Webster Park. Upon further review of
the sidewalk maintenance classification definitions, staff has the following recommendation:
Designate the segment as a community sidewalk.
Remove the existing 4 foot wide sidewalk and install a 5 to 6 foot wide sidewalk.
The removal and replacement of the existing sidewalk is recommended in order for Operations to
perform snow removal efficiently and effectively. Snow removal for community sidewalks is
completed using equipment that requires walks that are at least 5 feet wide. Removing snow from
sidewalks narrower than 5 feet is challenging for the following reasons:
Using equipment will cause damage on either side of the sidewalk, scraping up grass,
gouging trees, damaging retaining walls, and any other obstructions adjacent to the
sidewalk.
Depending on the elevation of the land and existing obstructions on either side, the
equipment may not be able to travel on the sidewalk, leaving areas that are not cleared.
The alternative to using the city’s existing equipment to remove snow would be to use a
push behind snow blower, or shovels. This is a labor intensive operation and would have
impacts on the timeliness of snow removal for community sidewalks.
Sidewalk Segment #15- Zarthan Avenue from Lake Street to Minnetonka Blvd (East Side)
This sidewalk segment is recommended for construction. This sidewalk is proposed to be
classified as a neighborhood sidewalk. City Council had questions about staff’s recommendation
for this segment.
Staff recommendations for sidewalk installation were made based on a number factors. The
following is the information that staff used to reach its recommendation for this sidewalk segment:
The street width is 21.5 feet and parking is allowed only on the west side.
There is limited impacts to trees and vegetation.
There is no need to construct retaining walls.
The cost per foot is one of the lower costs in next year’s program.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
For the reasons listed above, staff is recommending the construction of the proposed sidewalk
segment.
The sidewalk on the west side of Zarthan Avenue is on the same side of the street as an activity
node (a place of worship) so it is proposed as a community sidewalk. The sidewalk on the east
side of Zarthan is not on the same side of the street as the activity node, so the recommended
designation is neighborhood sidewalk.
Sidewalk Segment #19/#20- Alabama Ave from Lake St to Minnetonka Blvd (West/East side)
These sidewalk segments are recommended for construction. These segments are proposed to be
classified as a neighborhood sidewalks. Discussion by city council was whether these sidewalk
segments should be classified as a community sidewalks.
The sidewalk on the west side of Alabama Avenue is on the same side of the street as an activity
node in Keystone Park. Upon further review of the sidewalk maintenance classification definitions,
staff is recommending that this sidewalk segment be classified as a community sidewalk.
The sidewalk on the east side of Alabama Avenue is not on the same side of the street as an activity
node, so the recommended designation is neighborhood sidewalk.
Sidewalk Segment #4- Hamilton Avenue from Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave (South side)
This sidewalk segment is not recommended for construction. Discussion by city council was why
this sidewalk was not recommended.
Staff recommendations for sidewalk installation were made based on a number factors. The
following is the information that staff used to reach its recommendation for this sidewalk segment:
The street has less than 150 vehicles travelling on it.
The proposed sidewalk on the 35th Street will provide the east-west connection to Webster
Park requested by residents.
For the reasons listed above, staff is not recommending the construction of the proposed sidewalk
segment.
Sidewalk Segment #16- Alabama Avenue from 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West side)
This sidewalk segment is not recommended for construction. Discussion by city council was why
this sidewalk was not recommended.
Staff recommendations for sidewalk installation were made based on a number factors. The
following is the information that staff used to reach our recommendation for this sidewalk
segment:
The street has less than 150 vehicles travelling on it.
Sidewalk would require the removal of 3 trees in city right of way in front of one property.
For the reasons listed above, staff is not recommending the construction of the proposed sidewalk
segment.
Sidewalk Segment #17- Alabama Avenue from 34th Street to Lake Street (West side)
This sidewalk segment is not recommended for construction. Discussion by city council was why
this sidewalk was not recommended.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
Staff recommendations for sidewalk installation were made based on a number factors. The
following is the information that staff used to reach our recommendation for this sidewalk
segment:
Sidewalk on the other side (east) would have less impacts.
Sidewalk would require the removal of 4 trees (including a large healthy tree) and multiple
bushes.
Significant impacts to landscaping and trees in the right- of- way adjacent to one property.
For the reasons listed above, staff is not recommending the construction of the proposed sidewalk
segment.
ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK
Webster Avenue Street Width
In the last week, residents have expressed concerns on the proposed street width of Webster
Avenue between Lake Street and 33rd Street. Webster Avenue is 36 feet wide from Lake Street
to 200 feet south of Lake Street; south of this location, the street is 30 feet wide. The recommended
project design is leave the street width at the north end at 36 feet wide. This is in order to allow
for turning movements at Lake Street and to accommodate the higher parking demand for the
commercial uses adjacent to this street segment. The recommendation is to reduce the street width
from 30 feet to 28 feet starting at a point 200 feet south of Lake Street all the way to the frontage
road.
Residents have shared concerns regarding travel on the existing 30 foot wide segment when there
are cars parked on both sides of the street. The north segment of Webster has a higher on street
parking demand on evenings and weekends due to the commercial uses at Lake Street. Also, the
street has a higher traffic volume due to Groves Academy. When there are cars parked on both
sides in the existing 30 foot wide segment, two way travel on the street is restricted to cars taking
turns moving in opposite directions. This parking demand is unique to Webster Avenue compared
to other streets in the neighborhood.
Staff recommends reducing the width of the south end of Webster Avenue. However, due to the
parking demand on the north end of Webster, staff recommends additional conversations with
property owners regarding parking demand be pursued. Parking is allowed on both sides of streets
that are 28 feet and greater in width. Staff will work on developing a solution that will address the
concern, and not move the concern to another area. Potential solutions could include one side no
parking, permit parking, or hourly parking restrictions.
IMPACTS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF ENTRY: The proposed roadway, utility and
sidewalk construction activities for 2017 are challenging to build in a fully development
community such St. Louis Park. The design and implementation of these segments require
flexibility in design standards and creativity in design alternatives. Each sidewalk segment is
unique and requires its own set of design solutions to minimize and mitigate impacts to the
community.
The designs presented to the residents and in this report acknowledge that tree loss and temporary
impacts to private property are two very sensitive issues. The proposed design endeavors to
balance the need for increased pedestrian facilities within the City with the impacts to residents
who live along these proposed sidewalks, trails and bikeways.
If these projects are approved, staff will work with residents to obtain the easements and right of
entry documents necessary to construct the various sidewalk and trails.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The following table outlines the estimated
project cost and anticipated funding sources for Pavement Management and Connect the Park
project.
Pavement Management Fund- Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $2,473,762
Contingencies (10%) $247,376
Engineering & Administration (15%) $371,064
Total 3,092,203
Watermain Fund- Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $1,675,439
Contingencies (10%) $167,544
Engineering & Administration (10%) $167,544
Total $2,010,527
Storm Sewer Fund- Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $296,712
Contingencies (10%) $29,671
Engineering & Administration (10%) $29,671
Total $356,054
Sanitary Sewer Fund- Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $166,216
Contingencies (10%) $16,622
Engineering & Administration (10%) $16,622
Total $199,459
Connect the Park (General Obligation Bonds)- Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $782,567
Contingencies (10%) $78,257
Engineering & Administration (25%) $195,642
Total $1,056,465
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
Fiber (GO Bonds)- Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $200,000
Contingencies (10%) $20,000
Engineering & Administration (10%) $20,000
Total $240,000
Funding Sources
Pavement Management Fund $3,092,203
Watermain Fund $2,010,527
Storm Sewer Fund $356,054
Sanitary Sewer Fund $199,459
General Obligation Bonds (sidewalk) $1,056,465
General Obligation Bonds (Fiber) $240,000
Total $6,954,708
NEXT STEPS: The proposed schedule for the segments recommended by staff to facilitate
construction in 2017 is as follows:
Public Hearing and Approval of Plans / Authorization to Bid February 6, 2017
Advertise for Bid February-March 2017
Bid Opening March 2017
Council Awards Construction Bids Early April 2017
Construction May to November 2017
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 8
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4017-1000
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 4017-1000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Project Manager related to the 2017 Pavement Management Program.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 4017-1000 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 4017-1000, is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official City
newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making
of said improvements under said-approved plans and 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 bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount
of the bid.
6. The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 9
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4017-2000
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4017-2000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Project Manager related to the 2017 Connect the Park project.
WHEREAS, to take advantage of contract pricing and minimize construction disruption,
these segments will be bid with Project No. 4017-1000: Pavement Management Project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 4017-2000 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The following segments are hereby established and ordered:
Number Description Sidewalk
Classification
Staff
Recommendation
1 Zarthan Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (West Side) Community Yes
2 Zarthan Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Community Yes
3
Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West
Side)
Community
Yes
5 Webster Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Community Yes
6 Webster Avenue- 33rd Street to Lake Street (East Side) Community Yes
8 Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Neighborhood Yes
9 Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (West Side) Neighborhood Yes
10 Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (East Side) Neighborhood Yes
11 Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (West Side) Neighborhood Yes
13 Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side) Community Yes
15
Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East
Side)
Neighborhood
Yes
18 Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (East Side) Neighborhood Yes
19
Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West
Side)
Community
Yes
20
Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East
Side)
Neighborhood
Yes
22 Brunswick Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (East Side) Neighborhood Yes
23 Brunswick Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Neighborhood Yes
24 34th Street- Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue (North Side) Neighborhood Yes
25
34th Street- Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue (South
Side)
Neighborhood
Yes
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 10
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
27 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side) Neighborhood Yes
29
34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North
Side)
Neighborhood
Yes
30
Hamilton Street- Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue (North
Side)
Neighborhood
Yes
31
Hamilton Street- Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue
(North Side)
Neighborhood
Yes
33 35th Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (North Side) Community Yes
34 35th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side) Community Yes
35
35th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North
Side)
Community
Yes
36 35th Street- Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue (North Side) Community Yes
37 Utica Avenue- 27th Street to 28th Street (West Side) Neighborhood Yes
4. The following segments are hereby removed from the project:
Number Description Staff
Recommendation
4
Hamilton Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (South
Side)
Neighborhood
No
7 Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (West Side) Neighborhood No
12 Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Neighborhood No
14 Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (East Side) Neighborhood No
16 Alabama Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side) Neighborhood No
17 Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Neighborhood No
21 Blackstone Avenue- Lake Street to Dead End (West Side) Neighborhood No
26 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side) Neighborhood No
28
34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (South
Side)
Neighborhood
No
32
Hamilton Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South
Side)
Neighborhood
No
5. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved. The Project Manager is
allowed to make adjustments to these plans and specifications, such as narrowing the
width of boulevards or sidewalks, in cases where special circumstances exist in the field,
such as the location of trees, provided that these adjustments will make a material
difference in addressing any special circumstances that may exist.
6. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
City newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the
making of said improvements under said-approved plans and 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 bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent
of the amount of the bid.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Page 11
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
7. The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council
shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«7WOO
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MINNETONKA BLVD
LAKESTW
BLACKSTONEAVESMI
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
YOSEMITEAVESCAMERATA WAYXENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESWALKERST33RD ST W
31ST ST W
WALKERST35TH ST W ZARTHANAVESALABAMAAVES33RD ST W
32ND ST W
HAMILTON ST
34TH ST W
32ND ST W YOSEMITEAVESXENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESBLACKSTONEAVESWEBSTERAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESW O O D D A LE A V E TO E B H W Y7W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E AV E S E R V IC E D R H IG H WA Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVES
6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
3031 3024
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3034
555530413033
3019
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
3019
3021
5707
3000
2949
3000
2948
2944
3020
5801
3004
3009
63126404
2938 2939
3024
5917
2948 2949 2934
2944 2945
3037 3035 30363034 3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000
5530
30016317
2954 2953
2955
30006325
5500
2953
6004
60126100
6104
2961
5600
2945
5912
2943
6020
2949
6200
2952
3020 3018
3020 3014
2940
5612
5908
2942
6000
6108611261166212
3013
3015 3011
3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3028
3030
3031303030313038
3016 30113011 56435647
3024
30253027
2934
2945
294429412940
2944 2941
2930
29412940
2936 2937
2940 2941
2941
2936 29242937
3010
3007
2936
2936 2925
3005
29312930
2936
5621
3025
30243025
6405
57082967
29482948
2944
2960
5904
2944
5920
2955
60086220
301530153016
2935
292429342937 2929 2925
2945 2936
2943
3007 3010 5639
6119 2945
2940
2937
2937 2924
2930
2932
6320
334433443355
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
33453345
3344 3340
3341 33413341 33363334
3350
3333
33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
5580
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333
33283339
3325
330833123308330932523316
330433043308
3317
33256037
332033263320
6031
3322
3317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
331333126126
3311
3308
6013
3305
6019
3317
3308
33043305
33003304
3272
3309 6007
33013301330063116325
3309
3260
3236 3275
3304 3274
3300
3244 33013300
3240 3272
3267
3268
3300
3278
3259 3267
3353 3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
6320
3256
3251
6300
3255
63126324
3263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
3240
3243 3236
32323237
5925
32443224324832443250 3250
32363220
32433243
32323236
3251
3253 326563046310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
33123312331233136120
3309 3280 330532483313
33003312
3301
3240
3216 3237 3244
3239
3230
3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239
3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3233
3228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
321632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226 5831
3224 3224322532253225
3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152
3220
32083209 3207
32793267
3267
3266 3273
327432563260
3216
32163212 3213
3212
3205
3209 3206
5826
3148 3205
5737
32013200
3248
324432283249 3255
3247
3253
3241 3242
3248
324132453237
3200
3201
31603200
3200
3208
6319
3156
3207
3209
3144
5733
3201
3161
3200 3201
3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
31523143
32283229
3230
3204
5827
3224
3223
32203224
3216 3217
3156 3213
57403144
3128
3141 3140
3140
3208
3213
3210
320432043205
5900
5820
3201
3157
5725
5814
3148
5808
3145
31413130
3129
3131 3127
3124
3134
3137
5726
3137
5732
3131
3135 5720
3112 3125
3118
5627
3131
3130 3133
3101
31293119
3117
5714
3113 3112
31213120
5623
31213104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3124
3114
3111
3051
3106
5700
3104
3101
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3105 3101
3110
56816017
5655566156655925
568556915708
6300
6005
5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316
3410
3400
567156753457
3456
6010
3520
3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
6216
6228
3459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
6200
34123413
60016005
6301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
3450
621163096317
3407
34303431
34256026
3425
3424 6018
3419 3416
6218
6418
59135917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214
34123413
3413
6401
3406 3409
3407
340034013401
5905
6329 3360
3369
6006
3361
600160053401
5725
6212
6024
6304
3468
58203379
3369
5906
3375
3397
3376
6210
336033693366
33573356
6
4
1
4
6013
3401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359
3348
59163365
3368
33643356
3356
5925
6009
3365
6216
3357
33526227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
3431
3424
3417
600662106224
3406
6422
6221
3355
33503349
3358 3349
3348
64163400
3400592560096201
572033723380
6220
5912
5922
3363
6012 3364 33656301
33603359
3353
3362
33523355
3348 3350
3349
6213
3354
3349
3524
5707
3548
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SORENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD
Legend
Existing Sidewalks selection 2
Not Recommened Sidewalks
Recommended Community Sidewalks
Recommended Neighborhood Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks- Community
Existing Sidewalks- Neighborhood
Removal of Existing Sidewalk Under Review
Recommended Community Trails
! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trails
Ü
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7 #8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#14#13
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#27 #29
#26 #28 #7
#15
#20
#18
#30 #31
#32
#33
#34
#35
#36
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 12
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«100
VERNONAVE S
MIN
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D TOLEDO AVES28TH ST W
27TH ST W
29TH ST W
28TH ST W
27TH ST W
26TH ST W
UTICAAVES29TH ST W
28TH ST W
WEBSTERAVESSALEMAVESSBHWY100STOMINNETONKABLVDALLEY2921
2913
2917
2916
2828
2829
2830 2829
2910
2712
5622 5600
2939
5524
5530
2953
5500
5600
2945
2943
2940
5612
5703
2934
2941
2924
2925
2931
5621
2948
2944
2925
2908
29122913
2936
5639
2905
2900
2900
2909
2901
2847
28402840
2846
2841
2845
2930
2920
2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
2816
2814
2824
28212820
2821
2820
2834
2817
2812
2807
2808
2808 2809
2804
2824
2825
2817
2813
2801
2813
2805
2616
261326122613
2800
2804
2644
2640
2643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
2725
2712
2721
27052705
2636
2641
2724
2725
2721
2717
2713
2704
2657
2650
2657
2645
2633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
26362637
2800
2624
2632
26212625
2616
26282625
262026202621
2617
2656
2801
2652
26482649
2749
2757 2756
2757
2748
2632
2629
2628
2629
2624
2744
2611
2747
2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
2709
2708
2701
2617
2737
2733
2708
2700
2709
2700
2610
2609
26042605
2608
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740
2736
2732
2701
2737 2704
2701
2701273227002733
2716
2717
26492648 2650
26432644
2709
2729
2724
2657
2648
2644
2708
2701 2634
27052738
2728
2720
2631 2630
2628
2624
2624
2620 262126202651
2632
2655
26222622
2647
2614
2713
26382637
2616 2617
2614
2641
2600
2600
2610
2607
2617
2612
2609
2608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725
2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
2636
2700
2635
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
2601
2631
5225
2544
2937 2936
2934
2955
2925
2926
29402939
2930
29332933
2929
2924
2922
2910
2904
2930
29202919
2918
29152916
2937
2855
2851 5210
2847
5124
2843
2839
29212949
2917
2908
2900
29012900
2856
2909 2907
2925
2913
5116
2851
2901
2831
2829
28422842
2835
28342834
2829
2925
2916
2943
2816
2841
282428232822
2835
5117512352015207
2785 5200 5100
2747
2743
2772
2845
2808
2815
2831
51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
2904
2931
2900
2901
2919 2848
510052005132
2840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788
2751
2748
5100
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764
2725
51245224
2777
2745 2744
2728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
2742
2710
2750
2716
2709
2839
2832
2835
2824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
51055217
5112
2800
2750
5118
2744
2735
2738
2737
2765
2758
2749
2708 27082709
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
Legend
Not Recommened Sidewalks
Recommended Community Sidewalks
Recommended Neighborhood Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks- Community
Existing Sidewalks- Neighborhood
Recommended Community Trails
! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trails
Ü
#37
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 13
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the proposed 2017 Pavement Management and
associated Connect the Park sidewalk segments and provide direction to staff, particularly related
to the proposed sidewalks.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish staff to continue to pursue the
installation of the sidewalk segments discussed in this report? Should staff continue to pursue the
narrowing of certain street segments and discussed in this report?
SUMMARY: The Engineering Department has been working on the design of the 2017 Pavement
Management Project and a number of sidewalk segments adjacent to the streets being rehabilitated
in the Sorensen and Birchwood Neighborhoods.
Pavement Management
Annually the pavement management project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets.
This year, the streets to be rehabilitated are located in Pavement Management Area 4. The street
rehabilitation work consists of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and
replacing portions of concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sewer repairs and
watermain replacement.
Connect the Park
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways throughout the community. This year there is one sidewalk segment in the Connect the
Park plan located in Pavement Management Area 4. In addition, there a number of sidewalk gap
segments under consideration.
This report provides an overview of the proposed pavement rehabilitation, watermain replacement
and sidewalk construction for 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017. Franchise fees will be used to fund street rehab, water
utility funds will be used for the watermain construction, and sidewalks will be funded using G.O.
Bonds. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found in the remainder of
the report. The construction cost estimate for the entire Pavement Management and Connect the
Park Project is still being finalized and will be available at the February Council meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Sorensen & Birchwood Neighborhood Project Map
Sorensen & Birchwood Neighborhood Sidewalk
Recommendation Map
Recommended Street Width Modifications
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 14
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) proactively addresses the
condition of the residential streets within the city. Many of these streets are now approaching 50
years of age or more. The city’s residential streets are still in relatively good condition due to the
fact that the streets were built well, are generally situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for
drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep
residential streets in good condition using maintenance strategies such as patching, crack filling
and seal coating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed
to prolong their life.
The PMP was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-
effective and efficient way by providing the right pavement strategy at the right time. Using the
City’s pavement management software, staff documents street condition ratings and monitors their
performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-effective treatments to
extend pavement life.
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways throughout the community. As part of Vision St. Louis Park in 2007, the city worked
with community members to create an Active Living Sidewalks and Trails plan.
The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of
sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and
accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. This is achieved by creating a system
plan that provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and bikeways every ½-mile in order to
improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. In addition to the
sidewalks included in the Connect the Park CIP, the City council provided staff direction to look
at sidewalk gaps that are adjacent to streets being rehabilitated as a part of our annual PMP.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This year’s project will be performed in Area 4 of the City’s eight
pavement management areas. It includes work in the Sorensen and Birchwood Neighborhoods.
The attached maps identify the streets in Area 4 that have been selected for rehabilitation and
outlines the various work to be performed on each street. Selection was based on street condition
and field evaluations to determine the condition of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s
underground utilities. A team of staff members from Streets, Utilities, and Engineering worked
together to select streets and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques for inclusion in
this year’s Pavement Management Project.
Many of the street segments are proposed to include additional infrastructure upgrades such as
watermain and water service replacement, storm sewer construction, and the installation of
sidewalk. Other streets will have random curb and gutter replacement and new asphalt surfacing.
Watermain and Water Service Replacement
The watermain on these streets are approximately 65-75 years old and experiencing deterioration.
The work will consist of the replacement of the watermain and the water services to the curb stop.
The watermain is approximately 7.5 feet deep and located under or near the curb, running parallel
to the street. In order to replace the watermain on a street segment, the asphalt pavement is
removed and the street is open cut to the depth of the watermain. In most cases the curb line closest
to the watermain needs to be removed prior to the watermain replacement, otherwise the curb will
fall in to the watermain trench. The removal of the entire curb line on one side of the street gives
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 15
the city an opportunity to modify the width of the roadway. There is more information on the
proposed modifications to the street widths later in this report.
The water services connect to the watermain and run to the curb stop and then to the house. The
curb stop is located between the curb and gutter and the right of way line. The City owns the water
service between the water main and the curb stop while the property owner owns the water service
between the curb stop and the house.
As a part of this project, the water service is proposed to be replaced between the watermain and
the city owned curb stop. The water service is also approximately 7.5 feet deep and must be open
cut to replace. Replacing the water services has significant impacts on existing trees, landscaping,
sidewalks, driveways, retaining walls, etc.
Street Widths
As noted previously, as a part of the Pavement Management Project we are replacing the
watermain on a number of the streets in the neighborhood. This work requires the removal of all
of the curb on one side of the road. In areas where we are removing all of the curb on one side of
the road, it provides us an opportunity to narrow the street. Staff recommends narrowing streets
for the following reasons:
1. A wider grass boulevard provides more space to plant trees.
2. Traffic calming- narrower streets can reduce vehicle speeds.
3. Reduction in directly connected impervious- less street pavement means less runoff going
into our storm sewer.
4. Less pavement reduces solar generated heat.
5. By narrowing the streets pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance at intersections.
6. Cost- narrower streets reduces the cost of initial construction and future maintenance
(sealcoating, sweeping, salt application, snow plowing, etc.)
7. It’s consistent with past policy direction given by the Council and is in alignment with the
Living Streets policy being developed by the Environment and Sustainability Commission
and staff.
We have discussed this recommendation with our Police and Fire Departments and they do not
have a concern about a 28 foot wide road with parking on both sides.
Attached to this report is a graphic displaying staff’s recommended proposed street widths.
Watermain is being replaced on the following street segments. Staff recommends that these streets
be narrowed as shown in the table.
Street Segment Existing (ft.) Proposed (ft.)
Webster Avenue from 35th Street to Lake Street 30 28
Xenwood Avenue from 35th Street to 33rd Street 30 28
Yosemite Avenue from 35th Street to Lake Street 30 28
Zarthan Avenue from 35th Street to 33rd Street 30 28
Alabama Avenue from 35th Street to 34th Street 30 28
Brunswick Avenue from Wooddale Avenue to Lake Street 32 28
34th Street from Lake Street to Xenwood Avenue 30 28
Hamilton Street from Dakota Avenue to Yosemite Avenue 30 28
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 16
The following streets do not have watermain replacement and are recommended to stay at their
current width:
Xenwood Avenue from 33rd Street to Lake Street (30 feet)
Zarthan Avenue from 33rd Street to Lake Street (30 feet)
Alabama Avenue from 34th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (30 feet)
Blackstone Avenue from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (26 feet)
Dakota Avenue from 35th Street to Lake Street (30 feet)
32nd Street from Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (21.5 feet)
33rd Street from Zarthan Avenue to Webster Avenue (28 feet)
35th Street from Dakota Avenue to Alabama Avenue (30 feet)
A street width of 28 feet from face of curb to face of curb is adequate to allow parking on two
sides of the streets. Street widths of less than 28 feet are typically signed as parking on one side
only.
Staff also worked closely with Operations and Recreation, Police and Fire to understand
appropriate street widths for efficient snow removal and safe travel for emergency response
vehicles.
Storm Sewer
Staff has identified opportunities to install storm water best management practices (BMPs) in order
to reduce volume and improve storm water quality. These improvements will be installed as a part
of the project. This neighborhood drains to the basin in Bass Lake Preserve. One of the City’s
goals for the Bass Lake Preserve is to reduce the volume of water going to the basin.
Street Trees
The City Forester has completed a tree inventory in the project area. This inventory reviewed the
size, species, health, and condition of all of the trees within the project limits. As a part of the
design, staff worked to preserve existing boulevard trees to the maximum extent possible. There
are a number of trees that are being recommended for removal because of health, watermain
construction or sidewalk construction. Tree replacement will be completed based on the City’s
tree ordinance.
Proposed Sidewalks
As a part of the design for the Pavement Management Project, 13,964 feet (2.64 miles) of
sidewalks and 544 feet (0.10 miles) of trails were evaluated for construction in 2017. These
sidewalks fall into three categories; Connect the Park CIP, sidewalk gaps, and resident feedback
segments. There are 37 different segments that were evaluated.
Staff Recommendations:
At the end of this report, staff has provided individual evaluation sheets for each of the 37 sidewalk
segments. Comments received from the public meetings and other communication from property
owners along with details on each segment have been added to the individual segment pages.
Each sidewalk segment is unique and requires its own set of design solutions. Staff used the
following criteria to base our recommendations. Staff recommendations are context sensitive; no
one criteria ranked higher than others, rather it was an evaluation of numerous factors.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 17
Traffic volumes
o Volumes under 150 vehicles a day = Sidewalk not recommended
o Volumes from 150 vehicles a day and greater = Sidewalk recommended on at least
1 side of the street
Existing sidewalk percentage versus proposed sidewalk percentage
o If proposed sidewalk is less than 25% = Recommend sidewalk if no major impacts
o If proposed sidewalk is greater than 25% = Look at other criteria factors.
Street widths
Connectivity to sidewalk network and destinations
o How does the sidewalk fit into the overall network of sidewalks and trails?
o Is this sidewalk identified in the Active Living Sidewalk and Trail Plan?
o Does the sidewalk provide a direct connection to a park, shopping center, school,
etc.?
Impacts (Tree, retaining walls, etc.)
Cost
Connect the Park CIP:
The following sidewalk segments were proposed for construction as a part of the Connect the Park
CIP.
Number Description Staff
Recommended?
1 Zarthan Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (West Side) Yes
2 Zarthan Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Yes
3 Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West Side) Yes
4 Hamilton Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (South Side) No
As a result of the review of the comprehensive sidewalk plan for the neighborhood, staff is not
recommending the construction of the sidewalk gap on the south side of Hamilton Avenue.
Instead, staff recommends that the sidewalk be constructed one block south along the north side
of the Frontage Road (35th Street) with a connection from the Frontage Road (35th Street) along
the west side of Zarthan to 34th Street (see segment numbers 13 & 33).
Since these segments were identified in in the Connect the Park CIP, they are proposed to be
designated as Community sidewalks with the City taking the responsibility for snow removal.
Sidewalk Gaps & Resident Feedback Sidewalks:
As a part of our construction projects, staff works to identify gap sidewalk segments. The sidewalk
gaps identified for the 2017 pavement management area are included in this project design for
consideration. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a section of sidewalk that is
missing on a continuous street block.
At the first public meeting, residents expressed a need for sidewalk connections to Webster Park.
As a result, the staff evaluated additional (east-west) sidewalk connections in the neighborhood.
These resident feedback sidewalks were discussed at the second and third public meeting.
These segments, if approved, would be constructed at no cost to the property owners and the City
would be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. However, these sidewalk
segments would follow the appropriate sidewalk designation Neighborhood or Community.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 18
Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; community
sidewalks are the City’s responsibility.
The table on the following page is a summary of all of the Gap and Resident Feedback Sidewalks
along with staff recommendations.
Estimated Cost for Sidewalk and Trail Segments:
Recommended
(9,683 FT)
Not Recommended
(4,825 FT)
Total
Construction Cost $807,323 $376,498 $1,183,821
Engineering Cost
(20%)
$161,465 $75,300 $236,765
Total Cost $968,788 $451,797 $1,420,585
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 19
Number Description Staff
Recommended?
5 Webster Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Yes
6 Webster Avenue- 33rd Street to Lake Street (East Side) Yes
7 Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (West Side) No
8 Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Yes
9 Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (West Side) Yes
10 Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (East Side) Yes
11 Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (West Side) Yes
12 Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) No
13 Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side) Yes
14 Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (East Side) No
15 Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East Side) Yes
16 Alabama Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side) No
17 Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) No
18 Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (East Side) Yes
19 Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West Side) Yes
20 Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East Side) Yes
21 Blackstone Avenue- Lake Street to Dead End (West Side) No
22 Brunswick Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (East Side) Yes
23 Brunswick Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Yes
24 34th Street- Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue (North Side) Yes
25 34th Street- Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue (South Side) Yes
26 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side) No
27 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side) Yes
28 34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (South Side) No
29 34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North Side) Yes
30 Hamilton Street- Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue (North Side) Yes
31 Hamilton Street- Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue (North Side) Yes
32 Hamilton Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side) No
33 35th Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (North Side) Yes
34 35th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side) Yes
35 35th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North Side) Yes
36 35th Street- Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue (North Side) Yes
37 Utica Avenue- 27th Street to 28th Street (West Side) Yes
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 20
Public Process:
Three open houses were held to provide an opportunity for residents to learn more about the
proposed project and to provide feedback on the proposed plans. Notifications was done through
letters, sandwich boards, neighborhood associations, NextDoor, Constant Contact and the city
website.
Open House #1 (August 16, 2016)
This public meeting was a kickoff meeting to provide residents with high level information
on what was being proposed for this project and the history of the Pavement Management
Program and Connect the Park CIP. Information was provided on what to expect for future
open houses and what to expect during construction. Residents were able to look at
preliminary layouts and provide feedback to city staff.
The following are the key comments and questions staff heard in this first open house:
Sidewalk snow removal
A need additional (east-west) sidewalk connections to Webster Park including
a sidewalk along 35th Street
What is the public process with the sidewalks?
Concern that the decision on the sidewalks are a “done-deal”
Tree and landscaping impacts
What to expect during construction
There were 32 residents who signed in at this open house out of 642 properties notified of
the meeting.
Open House #2 (October 25, 2016)
The purpose of this open house was to gather feedback on the preliminary plans for the
street reconstruction and the proposed sidewalks. This was the first meeting showing
sidewalks that were added due to resident feedback. The preliminary plans showed impacts
to trees, landscaping, retaining walls, etc. and showed the proposed construction limits.
Many residents asked questions, wrote post it notes on the plans and provided suggestions
for modifications to this preliminary design. Staff tried to incorporate these comments into
a refined design. Feedback from this meeting ultimately helped guide city staff on the final
designs.
The following are the key comments and questions staff heard in this second open house:
Concerns over tree removals or root damage. Request to look at alternatives to
save tree.
Sidewalk is not needed or only needed on one side of the street
Sidewalk is needed on both sides
Sidewalk snow removal
Landscaping impacts
Who removes the snow from the sidewalk on corner lots on 35th Street
Street narrowing
Add a turnaround at end of Utica Avenue
Safety at crosswalk on Utica Avenue at pedestrian bridge
There were 36 residents who signed in at this open house out of 642 properties notified of
the meeting.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 21
Open House #3 (January 10, 2017)
The purpose of this open house was to provide attendees with the staff recommended final
design for streets and sidewalks in the project. The final plans show impacts to trees,
landscaping, retaining walls, etc. and the proposed construction limits. This is the last
public information meeting before bringing this project to City Council for a public hearing
and action.
City Council Public Hearing
The City Council Public Hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2017.
If property owners were unable to attend the meetings, or if they had specific concerns that they
wanted to walk through, staff met with them on site. Using the information gathered from the
open houses, individual site visits, phone calls and emails, staff revised the sidewalk design to try
to minimize the impacts within the right- of- way. When impacts could not be avoided, staff
proposed mitigation.
Engineering staff worked closely with Operations and Recreation staff to ensure the network of
sidewalk being built would meet the objectives for tree preservation/ replanting and acceptable
widths and design features for snow removal on community sidewalk segments.
NEXT STEPS: The proposed schedule for the segments recommended by staff to facilitate
construction in 2017 is as follows:
Council Study Session January 17, 2017
Council Public Hearing February 6, 2017
Council Awards Construction Bids Early April 2017
Construction May to November 2017
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 22
CONNECT THE PARK CIP- SIDEWALK SEGMENTS
1. Zarthan Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 23
#1
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(Hamilton Street to 34th Street)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 358 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 3 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 3 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 128 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $39,090
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $106.40/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: A 2.75 foot high retaining wall needed for part of sidewalk segment due to grade of yards.
Resident Feedback:
3400 Zarthan‐ Email‐ Resident thinks it is a great idea to add more sidewalk in neighborhood even if
it means more snow to shovel. Wanted to make sure other gaps in neighborhood would get
evaluated. I sent him a map showing the sidewalks segments being evaluated. Resident sees a lot
of kids walking down to the corner of 34th/ Yosemite to catch school bus and they have to walk in
street if no sidewalks.
Open House Comment‐ Sidewalk not needed on west side since there is existing sidewalk on east
side.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 24
2. Zarthan Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 25
#2
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐10 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 645 Feet (52%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 584 Feet (48%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 10 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 3 Trees to be protected
Bushes 1 bush removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 50 Feet (Due to house and driveway length)
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $53,244
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $82.55/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: Due to driveway length and proximity to patio at 5900 34th St (corner of Zarthan Ave & 34th St) the
sidewalk was moved to the back of curb for 50 feet for that property.
Resident Feedback:
3364 Zarthan‐ Email and met in person‐ Would love to see sidewalk all the way from Lake Street to
34th Street even if it will mean a change to their front yard. Met in person to discuss impacts to
their landscaping. They moved their flowers in the fall. Also had concerns about the storm catch
basin in front of their house that constantly gets plugged and floods street. Staff will evaluate catch
basin.
3328 Zarthan‐ Met in person‐ Would like to coordinate the construction of the street and sidewalk
with plans to redo their driveway.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 26
3. Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 27
#3
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 40 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 246 Feet (19%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 1,073 Feet (81%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 4 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes 2 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 37 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $19,073
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $77.53/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Street Width, Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: Boulevard is only 2.5 feet due to limited right of way. Segments of Zarthan Avenue are only 21.5 feet
wide and has parking limited to one side. Due to street widths, parking and traffic volumes, staff
recommend sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Resident Feedback:
3018 Zarthan‐ Email‐ Resident has lived in Sorensen Neighborhood for 27 years and strongly
supports construction of sidewalk where there are none and to fill in gaps. Resident walks a lot and
it is dangerous and a pain to hop from sidewalk to street and back. It is dangerous because of cars
for both the driver and pedestrians. It looks bad for sidewalk to go up part of block and then be a
gap for a few house then have the sidewalk continue as both sides of our block do. And it feels
fairer if everyone on our block had to shovel their sidewalk in the winter as we do.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 28
4. Hamilton Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (South Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 29
#4
Hamilton Street
South Side
(Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 363 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 4 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 90 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $31,582
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $87.00/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low Traffic Volumes
Notes: No major impacts to construct the sidewalk but due to low traffic volumes staff is not
recommending to build this sidewalk segment. If sidewalk on 35th Street is approved, it would provide an
east‐west connection to Webster Park. The 35th Street sidewalk in conjunction with a sidewalk along
Zarthan from 35th to 34th would meet the goals of the Connect the Park CIP.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 30
SIDEWALK GAP AND RESIDENT FEEDBACK SIDEWALK SEGMENTS
5. Webster Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 31
#5
Webster Avenue (Park Trail)
East Side
(35th Street to 33rd Street)
Resident Feedback Trail
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Trail Width 8 Feet (Bituminous Trail)
Proposed Trail Length 544 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk/Trail Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed Trail 1 City Park
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Trail at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 374 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $29,107
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $53.51/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: Staff meet with Operations and Recreation staff and the recommendation was to construct an 8 foot
bituminous trail along Webster Park.
Resident Feedback:
Sorensen Neighborhood‐ Residents of Sorensen Neighborhood were supportive of sidewalk
connection to get to and from Webster Park. Residents were also very interested in what the city
has planned for Webster Park once MnDOT land is released.
3350 Webster‐ Comment Card‐ Resident is excited about the proposed sidewalks and about the
new trees that will replace the ones that are lost.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 32
6. Webster Avenue- 33rd Street to Lake Street (East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 33
#6
Webster Avenue
East Side
(33rd Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 727 Feet (52%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 675 feet (48%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 11 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 8 Trees to be protected
Bushes 3 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property ‐ 42 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 20 feet
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 374 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $79,342
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $109.14/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/Destinations
Notes: Existing sidewalk on Webster Avenue to the north is 4 feet wide. Of the 3 trees being removed, they
are leaning towards to the street so for safety reasons, staff recommends removal. This sidewalk would
provide a connection from Lake Street to Webster Park.
Resident Feedback:
3225 Webster‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the location of the proposed sidewalk, impacts, and what to expect
during construction.
3147 Webster‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the proposed project and the watermain replacement. Has special
concrete section that will need to be replaced for water service but has no issues with that being done. Asked
the city to install additional catch basin mid‐block due to flat curb slope.
3265 Webster‐ Met in person‐ Had questions about the policy of sidewalks and why the city was spending
money on sidewalks when it could be spent elsewhere. Staff explained the history of Connect the Park. Was
concerned with street narrowing and plows getting through the narrowed streets. Staff explained that Streets,
Fire, Police were all involved with street width discussions. Resident was also concerned with limited driveway
length. Staff verified that his driveway length is adequate to park cars and not block the sidewalk. Resident
would rather have tree removed and boulevard reduced. Why isn’t this city plowed?
3350 Webster‐ Email‐ Resident thought it was great idea to connect the sidewalks to nowhere but had
questions on how this will affect the trees in the area. Staff explained that we will look at all options before
removing a tree.
3273 Webster‐ Email‐ Concerned and angry that nearly half of front yard will become a sidewalk and that the
retaining wall would be affected. Would like to see the boulevard width reduced and the sidewalk width
reduced. Feels the current proposal negatively alters property more than is necessary for a sidewalk.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 34
7. & 8. Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (West & East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 35
#7
Xenwood Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8.5‐10 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 956 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 22 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 6 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 8 Trees to be protected
Bushes 2 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Major (4 Properties – 1,010 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed 456 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 45 feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 245 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $83,187
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $87.02/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐ Recommend other side)
Notes: Construction on the west side would require a 2.25 foot high retaining wall for the majority of the
length of sidewalk between 34th Street and 33rd Street. With low traffic volumes on Xenwood Avenue,
sidewalk on at least one side of the street is adequate. East side of Xenwood Avenue has less impacts.
Resident Feedback:
3328 & 3308 Xenwood‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the proposed watermain and sidewalk project.
Staff explained the impacts (tree and new retaining wall) the proposed sidewalk would have. Staff
explained that if approved, staff would work with residents on limiting impacts to landscaping.
They had concerns with having more steps and with snow removal. Staff gave them information on
how to contact council member and about process of public hearing.
3412 Xenwood‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the proposed watermain and sidewalk project. Wanted
to see in person where the sidewalk would be located. Staff measured out the boulevard and
sidewalk for them. Staff could protect the tree on the corner by moving the sidewalk further away
from the street but they were okay with the tree being removed.
3340 Xenwood‐ Comment Card‐ Xenwood from 33rd to Walker/ 35th has very narrow lots. Many
have little to no backyard. Majority of green space in front yard. Street is narrow with parking on
both sides. Two cars coming from opposite direction, one must pull over.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 36
#8
Xenwood Avenue
East Side
(35th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 945 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 12 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 4 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 7 Trees to be protected
Bushes 1 bush removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 88 feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 245 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $68,756
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $72.76/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐East side has less
impacts)
Notes: Construction of this sidewalk will not require a retaining wall. With low traffic volumes on Xenwood
Avenue, staff recommends sidewalk on one side of the street. East side of Xenwood Avenue has less
impacts. The only major tree impact is to two pine trees on one property.
Resident Feedback:
3337 Xenwood‐ Comment Card‐ Sidewalks on the 3300 block of Xenwood would not connect to
parks or trails. People walk down 33rd Street to the park. This will not increase the value of people
properties. Most of the odd side homes do not have usable back yards as we sit on a hill. This is
only level green space my kids have. Sorensen neighborhood has already been through the
Highway 100 construction inconvenience and now another year of inconvenience. For cost vs
benefit this does not make sense.
3345 Xenwood‐ Comment Card‐ Resident can’t see the benefit of putting sidewalk on both sides of
the street especially when we don’t have a backyard. Property values will go down.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 37
9. & 10. Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (West & East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 38
#9
Yosemite Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to 34th Street)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 53 Feet (13%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 359 Feet (87%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $4,357
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $82.21/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed Sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: No major impacts. Would connect existing sidewalk on Yosemite Avenue to the proposed sidewalk
on 35th Street.
Resident Feedback:
3418 Yosemite‐ Resident is very happy about the sidewalk improvements that are proposed on
Yosemite Avenue.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 39
#10
Yosemite Avenue
East Side
(35th Street to 34th Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 66 Feet (16%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 346 Feet (84%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $4,753
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $72.00/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed Sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: No major impacts. Would connect existing sidewalk on Yosemite Avenue to the proposed sidewalk
on 35th Street.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 40
11. & 12. Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (West & East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 41
#11
Yosemite Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 87 Feet (11%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 729 Feet (89%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Residential Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $5,136
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $59.03/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed Sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: No major impacts and low cost to construct the small sidewalk gap missing.
Resident Feedback:
3372 Yosemite‐ Phone conversation‐ Resident had question about whether property owners would
be assessed for this project. Staff explained that there would not be assessments for this project.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 42
#12
Yosemite Avenue
East Side
(34th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐8.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 642 Feet (79%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 172 Feet (21%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 11 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 5 Trees to be protected
Bushes 8 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (3 Properties‐232 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed 280 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 18 Feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $52,468
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $81.72/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommended on other
side of street), Impacts
Notes: Construction on the east side would require a 2 foot high retaining wall for parts of the sidewalk
between 34th Street and 33rd Street. With low traffic volumes on Yosemite Avenue, sidewalk on at least
one side of the street is adequate. West side of Yosemite Avenue has less impacts. If sidewalk segment is
not approved, city staff would ask residents for input of what to do with existing walk.
Resident Feedback:
3349 Yosemite‐ Comment Card‐ Consider sidewalk on one side of the street. Sidewalk on both sides
is overkill. Save our elder trees.
3337 Yosemite‐ Comment Card‐ Wants sidewalk on both sides of the street. Looking forward to
new water pipes and sidewalks on both sides. Every day I see people walking in the streets because
of sidewalk gaps.
3345 Yosemite‐ Comment Card‐ In agreement with recommendation of not adding sidewalk on east
side
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 43
13 & 14. Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West & East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 44
#13
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to Hamilton Street)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 9.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 284 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 5 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 3 Tress to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $16,382
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $57.68/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street), Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: Due to traffic volumes, sidewalk on one side of Zarthan between 35th Street and Hamilton Street is
adequate. No major impacts on either side but constructing the sidewalk on the west side would mean a
continuous sidewalk on the west side from Lake Street all the way to 35th Street.
Resident Feedback:
Open House Comment‐ Sidewalk not needed on west side if built on east side
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 45
#14
Zarthan Avenue
East Side
(35th Street to Hamilton Street)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 253 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (100%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 3 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $13,667
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $54.02
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommend on other
side)
Notes: Due to traffic volumes, sidewalk on one side of Zarthan between 35th Street and Hamilton Street is
adequate. No major impacts on either side but constructing the sidewalk on the west side would mean a
continuous sidewalk on the west side from Lake Street all the way to 35th Street. The 35th Street sidewalk
in conjunction with a sidewalk along Zarthan from 35th to 34th would meet the goals of the Connect the
Park CIP.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 46
15. Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 47
#15
Zarthan Avenue
East Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 40 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐2.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 712 Feet (56%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 561 Feet (44%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 8 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Yes (1 property‐ 635 Sq. Ft)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole, 1 Manhole
Sidewalk at back of curb? 297 Feet (Due to limited right of way)
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $52,643
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $73.94/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Street width
Notes: Boulevard is only 0 to 2.5 feet due to limited city right of way. Zarthan Avenue is only 21.5 feet wide
and has parking limited to one side. Due to street widths, parking and traffic volumes, staff recommend
sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Resident Feedback:
3109 Zarthan‐ Open House Comment‐ Does not want sidewalk on east side. No need for sidewalk
on both sides.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 48
16. Alabama Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 49
#16
Alabama Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to Hamilton Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 7 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 192 Feet (53%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 173 Feet (47%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 187 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 103 (35th St to Hamilton St)
Total Cost $16,715
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $87.06/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low Traffic Volumes, Impacts
Notes: Due to low traffic volumes on Alabama Avenue, sidewalk on one side of the street is adequate.
There is existing sidewalk already on the east side of the street. Sidewalk would require the removal of 3
trees in the right‐ of‐ way in front of one property. If sidewalk segment is not approved, city staff would ask
residents for input of what to do with existing sidewalk.
Resident Feedback:
6001 Hamilton (SW corner of Alabama Ave & Hamilton St)‐ Email and met in person‐ Appreciates
the intent of eliminating sidewalk gaps but strongly objects the proposed sidewalk on Alabama Ave
between 35th St and Hamilton St. No need for a sidewalk along my property besides closing the
gap. Pedestrian traffic is very light. No sidewalk on Alabama Avenue to the north so it a sidewalk to
nowhere. Sidewalk would remove 3 of 4 trees along Alabama Avenue. Would impact the grading of
the ROW adjacent to my property. Loss of ~30% of garden. Reduced Privacy. Have hard time
justify why I should maintain new sidewalk and it would make it more difficult to clear snow from
driveway.
3459 Alabama‐ Email‐ Completely unnecessary to build sidewalk because there is a sidewalk on my
side (East) already and brings no value to the neighborhood. Other locations that need sidewalk.
Sidewalk would have impacts on the trees and would be burden for resident to shovel.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 50
17 & 18. Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West & East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 51
#17
Alabama Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 7‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 516 Feet (56%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 412 Feet (44%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 7 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 4 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 3 Trees to be protected
Bushes Approx. 12 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Major (1 Property‐ 1,208 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 170 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $45,432
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $88.05/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommend on other
side), Impacts
Notes: Due to low traffic volumes on Alabama Avenue, sidewalk on one side of the street is adequate. A
very large tree would need to be removed for sidewalk. Sidewalk would have significant impacts to
landscaping and trees at 3316 Alabama Avenue. If sidewalk segment is not approved, city staff would ask
residents for input of what to do with existing sidewalk.
Resident Feedback:
3344 Alabama‐ Email‐ Main suggestion is to complete sidewalks along 34th Street from Alabama
Avenue to Lake Street. This is a comparatively well‐used route and many who walk it are students
on the way to or from the High School.
3316 Alabama‐ Met in Person‐ Main concerns are for the impacts to his landscaping, bushes and
trees. Have spent a lot of time and money in his front yard. Also would not like the see the removal
of the big tree on the property north of his. Sidewalk on one side is adequate.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 52
#18
Alabama Avenue
East Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 5‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 666 Feet (69%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 305 Feet (31%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 9 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 8 Trees to be protected
Bushes 2 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 87 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 170 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $60,228
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $90.43/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street)
Notes: Due to low traffic volumes on Alabama Avenue, sidewalk on one side of the street is adequate.
Sidewalk on the east side has less impacts to landscaping and trees. Sidewalk would require a 2.5 foot high
retaining wall for one property (3365 Alabama Ave).
Resident Feedback:
3329 Alabama‐ All rain runoff runs into catch basin here and floods. Adding sidewalk will add more
flooding during heavy rains.
3325 Alabama‐ Comment Card‐ My wife and I don’t want the sidewalk. It will be closer to our front
door than any other house on our block due to the curve in our street. Our pavement is fine shape
and does not need to be replaced at this time.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 53
19 & 20. Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West & East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 54
#19
Alabama Avenue
West Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 52 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 167 Feet (10%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 1,536 Feet (90%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $14,891
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $89.16/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: In order to save tree at 3200 Alabama Avenue, sidewalk would need to be built on private property.
Completing this short section of sidewalk would mean there would be a continuous sidewalk/trail from
Minnetonka Blvd to Lake St.
Resident Feedback:
3200 Alabama Avenue‐ Met in person‐ Met with resident and Parks Department to discuss the large
tree on the property that would be impacted by the sidewalk. She stated the city promised her that
the small gap of sidewalk on her property would not be built because it would mean the removal of
the tree. The only way to save the tree would be to build sidewalk on private property. She would
be willing to allow that. A signed easement would be required.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 55
#20
Alabama Avenue
East Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 52 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐4.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 344 Feet (22%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 1,233 Feet (78%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 6 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 2 Trees Removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes 1 bush removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 96 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 105 Feet (Due to Driveway Length)
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $45,138
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $131.21/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: The major impacts to building this sidewalk are for 3101 and 3107 Alabama Avenue. The garage at
3107 is close to street so sidewalk has to be at back of curb in order for a vehicle to park in the driveway. A
1.5 foot high retaining wall would also be required for these two properties due to the grade of their yard.
Resident Feedback:
3101 Alabama Avenue‐ Email and Met in person‐ Concerned about proposed sidewalk. She says her
yard is basically a hill and to add sidewalk would take away her yard. Already a sidewalk on the
west side so don’t see a need. Concerned because she would have to shovel the sidewalk which is
basically impossible for her. Sidewalk would decrease value of home and would take away yard and
privacy.
3107 Alabama Avenue‐ Phone‐ Resident left a message with city staff asking if any new sidewalk
was going in on her side of the street. I returned her call and told her we are proposing sidewalk on
the east side of Alabama Avenue and that she can give me call and we can discuss the impacts.
Have not received a response yet.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 56
21. Blackstone Avenue- Lake Street to Dead End (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 57
#21
Blackstone Avenue
West Side
(Lake Street to Dead End)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 40 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 1,028 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 8 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 8 Trees removed due to Sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 263 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 1,028 Feet (Due to limited right of way)
Traffic ADT 133 (Lake St to Dead End)
Total Cost $62,627
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $60.92/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low Traffic Volumes, Impacts
Notes: Due to limited right of way and grade of yards, the sidewalk would need to be at the back of the curb
for the entire length and would need a 1.5 foot high retaining wall for 263 feet and affect 5 properties.
Blackstone Avenue has a low volume of traffic and is a dead end. Sidewalk would impact many trees and
require the removal of 8 trees.
Resident Feedback:
3266 Blackstone‐ Met in person‐ Was concerned with how the sidewalk and retaining wall would
impact her two trees. The trees are far enough back that they will not be impacted. She did not
think a sidewalk was needed for Blackstone Ave.
3256 Blackstone‐ Email, Comment Card, Met in Person‐ Convinced that the residents of Blackstone
Avenue deserve to be as safe as everyone else in Sorensen Neighborhood. Very concerned about
people being forced on the MN&S tracks. More sidewalk are needed in this plan. Sidewalk needed
to allow children to safety walk or bike to Webster Park.
3207 Blackstone‐ Meeting Comments‐ Don’t need sidewalks. Too many big trees will be removed
or damaged.
3274 Blackstone‐ Email‐ Staff answered questions about sidewalk design and how much of the yard
would be affected by sidewalk. Resident personally doesn’t see a need for a sidewalk on dead end
street without much traffic when it means losing a chunk of small front yard.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 58
22. Brunswick Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (East Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 59
#22
Brunswick Avenue
East Side
(Hamilton Street to 34th Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 80 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 16 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 110 Feet (30%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 256 Feet (70%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 238 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $8,557
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $77.79/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts , Low cost
Notes: No major impacts and low cost to construct the missing small sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
6026 Hamilton Street (NE corner of Brunswick Ave & Hamilton St) ‐ Email‐ Staff explained to
resident that there are no assessments for this project. Resident had questions about the shoveling
of sidewalk. Staff explained the difference between neighborhood and community walks and that
the sidewalk on Brunswick Avenue would be a neighborhood walk which is resident maintained.
Resident stated that people who walk their dogs or take walks typically walk on her lawn or they
cross the street and use sidewalk on other side. Resident is opposed to this sidewalk and see no
value that it will provide to her.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 60
23. Brunswick Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 61
#23
Brunswick Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 80 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 12 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 345 Feet (74%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 119 Feet (26%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 7 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 238 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $32,600
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $94.49/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts , low cost
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap. Closing this sidewalk gap would mean
there is a continuous sidewalk on the west side of Brunswick Avenue from Lake Street to Wooddale Avenue.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 62
24. 34th Street- Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 63
#24
34th Street
North Side
(Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐7 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 190 Feet (40%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 286 Feet (60%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 1 Tree to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 368 (Brunswick Ave to Alabama Ave)
Total Cost $10,910
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $57.42/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, No major impacts , low cost
Notes: No major impacts and low cost to construct the missing sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 64
25. 34th Street- Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue (South Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 65
#25
34th Street
South Side
(Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 207 Feet (56%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 165 Feet (44%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 1 Tree to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 100 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 17 Feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 368 (Brunswick Ave to Alabama Ave)
Total Cost $24,515
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $118.43/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes
Notes: Due to grade of yard, sidewalk would require a 2.5 foot high retaining wall for one property.
Resident Feedback:
5905 34th Street (Lives a block to the west of this sidewalk segment)‐ Email‐ Resident and neighbors
are excited to get the sidewalk extensions installed in their neighborhood and appreciates the city’s
efforts to improve the livability for us all. More people than ever walk in front of his house on 34th
Street.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 66
26 & 27. 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South & North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 67
#26
34th Street
South Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8‐10 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 300 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 1 Tree to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 3 Power Poles
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 293 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $26,477
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $88.26/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommend on other
side), Impacts
Notes: Sidewalk would require the removal of a large tree and would require major branch trimming and
root damage to protect a pine tree. The north side would not require any tree removal and would cost less.
Resident Feedback:
3401 Zarthan Avenue (SE corner of 34th and Zarthan) ‐ Resident want to save her white pine tree.
Staff was able to save the tree but major branch trimming will be required and root damage is
possible.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 68
#27
34th Street
North Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 304 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 293 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $20,788
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $68.38/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street), No major impacts
Notes: The north side would not require any tree removal and would cost less than south side. Existing
sidewalk to the west on 34th Street is on the south side which would require pedestrians to cross to the
north side at the intersection of 34th Street and Zarthan Avenue. There is stop signs for north‐south traffic
at this intersection.
Resident Feedback:
5820 34th Street‐ Comment Card‐ Resident states there is no walk now or planned that would
connect to this walk in my block on the north side. Resident does not want walk that will not be
used. Proposed walk will hardly ever used. People will have to cross the street from the south side
to the north side. Waste of money.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 69
28 & 29. 34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (South & North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 70
#28
34th Street
South Side
(Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2‐5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 287 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes 8 Bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 2 Power Poles
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $23,024
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $80.22/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Impacts
Notes: Sidewalk would require the removal of a three trees. Sidewalk would also be close to house at SE
corner of 34th Street and Yosemite Avenue. Sidewalk would also require the removal of bushes at 3400
Xenwood Avenue. Boulevard was reduced to 2 feet at 3400 Xenwood Avenue due to short driveway length.
The north side would not require any tree removal.
Resident Feedback:
3400 Xenwood Avenue (SW corner of 34th and Xenwood) ‐ Resident was concerned with driveway
length and having truck block sidewalk along with the safety of backing out of driveway. Staff
moved sidewalk closer to street to create minimal 20 feet of driveway length.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 71
#29
34th Street
North Side
(Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 290 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 4 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 105 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 50 Feet (Due to Tree)
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $23,666
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $81.61/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts, Low cost
Notes: Sidewalk was moved to back of curb at 5704 34th Street to save large tree.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 72
30. Hamilton Street- Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 73
#30
Hamilton Street
North Side
(Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 152 Feet (38%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 256 Feet (62%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $12,615
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $83.00/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts, Low cost
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 74
31. Hamilton Street- Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 75
#31
Hamilton Street
North Side
(Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2.5‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 111 Feet (33%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 223 Feet (67%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $11,814
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $106.43/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 76
32. Hamilton Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 77
#32
Hamilton Street
South Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 288 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 90 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $21,321
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $74.03/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low traffic volume, No major impacts
Notes: No major impacts to construct the sidewalk but this would possibly put sidewalk on 3 sides of 3450
Yosemite Avenue. Due to low traffic volumes staff is not recommending to build this sidewalk segment. If
sidewalk on 35th Street is approved, that would be an adequate east‐west connection to Webster Park.
Resident Feedback:
3451 Zarthan Avenue (SE corner of Hamilton & Zarthan) ‐ Open House Comment‐ Sidewalk would
be right against chain link fence.
Open House Comment‐ Would like to keep Hamilton Street width at 30 feet due to parking on both
sides.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 78
33. 35th Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 79
#33
35th Street
North Side
(Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 219 Feet (57%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 162 Feet (43%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 705 (Zarthan Ave to Yosemite Ave)
Total Cost $15,769
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $72.00/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic volumes, No major impacts, Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was
approved, there would be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open
house. Due to high traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 80
34. 35th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 81
#34
35th Street
North Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 366 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 6 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 67 Feet (Due to Tree)
Traffic ADT 705 (Zarthan Ave to Yosemite Ave)
Total Cost $26,992
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $73.75/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic volumes, No major impacts, Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: Moved the sidewalk to the back of the curb to save the tree at 3450 Yosemite Ave. No major
impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was approved, there would
be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open house. Due to high
traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
3450 Yosemite Ave (NW corner of 35th & Yosemite) ‐ Phone and Open House‐ Resident was
concerned about how the sidewalk would impact the trees on 35th especially the big tree near his
driveway. Staff was able to move the sidewalk to the back of curb to limit impacts to his tree. He
was happy with that design.
Open House comment‐ Who shovels this sidewalk? ‐ Staff is recommending this as a community
sidewalk (city snow removal)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 82
35. 35th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 83
#35
35th Street
North Side
(Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 403 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 3 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed 2 Trees to be removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 705 (Zarthan Ave to Yosemite Ave)
Total Cost $36,231
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $89.90/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: No major impacts to construct the sidewalk. Met with resident who has one tree being removed.
Would rather have tree removed than have sidewalk closer to house. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was
approved, there would be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open
house. Due to high traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
3412 Xenwood Ave (NW corner of 35th & Xenwood) ‐ Met in person‐ Answered questions about
project and the location of the sidewalk. Was okay with tree removal to keep sidewalk closer to
street.
3431 Yosemite Ave (NE corner of 35th & Yosemite) & Open House comment‐ Who shovels this
sidewalk on 35th? ‐ It was originally planned to be resident responsibility but staff is recommending
this as a community sidewalk (city snow removal)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 84
36. 35th Street- Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue (North Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 85
#36
35th Street
North Side
(Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 525 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed 5 Trees removed due to Sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $31,543
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $60.08/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: Three of the five trees to be removed are Ash trees. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was approved,
there would be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open house.
Due to high traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 86
37. Utica Avenue- 27th Street to 28th Street (West Side)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 87
#37
Utica Avenue
West Side
(27th Street to 28th Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width NA
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 617 Feet (65%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 332 Feet (35%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 10 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 112 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 80 Feet (Due to Driveway and Trees)
Traffic ADT 964 (27th St to 28th St)
Total Cost $60,190
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $63.42/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic volumes
Notes: Sidewalk was moved to back of curb at 2780 Utica Avenue due to driveway length and to save the
trees and berm in the city right of way.
Resident Feedback:
2780 Utica Avenue‐ Email and Phone‐ Opposed to the sidewalk due to impacts to her berm and
trees. Also would lose a driveway parking spot. Staff moved the sidewalk to the back of curb to
address her concerns.
2788 Utica Avenue‐ Comment Card‐ Opposed to the sidewalk. Why can’t the community trail go
from Minnetonka down Vernon heading north and turn east on 27th. Sidewalk already exist there
and is used a lot. Pedestrians coming from bus stop already use Vernon. Pedestrians on the east
side of Hwy 100 cross the pedestrian bridge and head north or go down 27th St to Vernon.
Pedestrians coming from west already use 27th and Vernon. You may have tested traffic on the 27th
Block of Utica but there are very few pedestrians walking on it. This is a waste of money to connect
the sidewalk gap when it connects to nothing. The existing sidewalk is coming up anyways to do
sewer why not leave it out.
Utica Avenue Resident‐ Email‐ Excited to see the city is planning to connect the rest of the
neighborhood with sidewalks. It is a great idea with our kids having a safe place to walk instead of
being forced out into the street. We hope the city understands the importance of the sidewalk on
this street. Utica is subject to higher traffic volumes than most streets. We have a young child and
are nervous to go for walks down the street. Have spoken to neighbors in support as well. Hard for
families with children to make meetings to express their support for this project. Our lack of
presence at open houses does not indicate lake of interest.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 88
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
")5
¬«7DAKOTAAVESEDGEWOODAVESMINNETONKA BLVD
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E VERNONAVESBLACKSTONEAVESYOSEMITEAVESZARTHANAVES32ND ST W
LAKE ST W
XENWOODAVESW A LKERSTWALKER ST
33RD ST W
MIN
N
ET
O
NKA BLVD31ST ST W
35TH ST W
CAMERATA WAYLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
HAMILTON ST
UTICA A VES34TH ST W
32ND ST W
DAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESW O O D D A LE A V E TO E B H W Y 7W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E A V E
S E R V IC E D R H IG H W A Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVES
6222
6222
6222
6222
3200
3031 30243036
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3048 3049
3044
3034 55553041
3045
3033
3019
3025
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
30193021 57073000 3000
3020
5801
3004
3009
3024
5917
3037 30353041 30363034
3037
3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000 553030016317
30002954 2953
3000
6417 6325
5500
6012
5600
2943
6020 2952
3020
3021
3018
3020 3014
5612
301330153011
3017 3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3029 3028
3040
30303031303030313038
3016 30113011
564356473024
30253027
3010
3007 30055621
3025
30243025
6425
64136405
57082967 29485920
301530153016
3007 3010
56393250
3300
2955
6320
334433443355
2949
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
3345
3345 3344 3340
3341 33413341 333633343350
3333 33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
5580
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333 33283339
3325
33083312330833093252
3316
330433043308
3317
33256037
332033263320603133223317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
33133312
61263311
3308
6013
3305
6019
33173252 3308
330433053248
33003304
3272
3309
6007
330133013300324463116325
3309
3240
3260
3237 3236 3275
3304 32743249
3300
3244 33013300
3240 3272326732683236
3300
3278
32593233 3267
3353
3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
63203256
3251
630032553228
631263243263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
32403221322032433236
32323237
5925
32443225322432483244
3250 3250
32363220 32433243
323232173236
3251
3253 3265
63043229
6310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
3312331233123313
6120325333093280 330532483313 33003312
3301
3240
3216 3216 3237 32443239
3230 3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239 3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3205 323332043228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
3216315632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226
5
8
3
1
3224 3224322532253225
3201 3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152 3152
3220
32083209 3207
3241
32793267
3267
3266 3273
327432563260
3216
32163212 3213
32123153 320532093206
5826
3149 3148 3205
5737
32013200
3232
3248
324432283249 3255
3224
3247 3253
3241 3242 3248
324132453237
32133212
3200
3201 31603200
3200
3208
3141 3156
3207
3209
3145 3144 57333201 3161
32003140 3201
3137 3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
3136
315231433133
32093208 32283229
3230
3204 58273224 3223
3200 32203224
3216 3217
3157 3156 3213
3128
574031443132
3129 3128 3141 31403140
3120
320832133210
3148 3204320432053144
5900
5820
3201
3157
57255814
3148
5808
3145
314131303129
3131 31273124
3134 3137
57263124
3137
3125
57323131
3135 5720
3112 3125 3118
3117
3112 5627
3108
3121 3131
3116 3130 3133
3101
31293119310731043117
5714
3113 3112
31213120 5623
312131013104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3113 3124
3114
3111
3052
3051
3106
3057
5700
3104
3053 3101
3100
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3056 3105 3101
3110
568456506017
46 5655566565045925
6500 568556915708
6300
6005
5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316
3450
3410
3400
567534573456
6010 3520 3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
621662283459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
62006500
34123413
600160056301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
34506211
63096317
3407
3398
34303431
34256026
3425
3424
6528
6018
3419 3416
62186418 5913
5917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214 341234133413
6401
3406 34093407
340034013401
6329 3360
3369
60063361
600160053401
5725
6212 602463043468
58203379
3369
59005906
337533973376
6210336033693366 33573356
6
4
1
4 60133401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359 3348
59163365 3368
33643356
3356
5925
60093365
621633576227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
34313424
6520
3417
600662106224
3406
64226
2
2
1
3355
335033493358 3349 3348
64163400
3400592560096201
5720337233806220591259223363
3364 33656301 33603359
33533362 335233553348 33503349
6213
3354
3349
3000
3524
5707
5720
3548
1,000
Feet±
Legend
2017 Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks
!!Existing Trails
Watermain and Pavement
Managment
Pavement Management
Segments
Parcels
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SORENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 89
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«100
29TH ST W
27TH ST W
VERNONAVESTOLEDOAVES26TH ST W
27TH ST W
29TH ST W
28TH ST W UTICA AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTERAVESRALEIGHAVESSALEMAVESSBHWY100STOMINNETONKABLVDALLEY2921
2913
29172916
2828282928302829
2910
2712
2939
552455302953
5500
5600
2945
2943 2940
5612
564329342941
2924
2925
2931
5621
2948
2944
2925
2908
29122913
2936
56392905 2900
2900
2909
2901
2847
28402840
2846
2841
2845
2930
2920
2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
2816 2814
2824
28212820
2821 2820
2834
2817 2812
2807
280828082809
2804
28242825
2817
2813
2801
2813
2805
2800
2804
2644
26402643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
2725
2712
2721
27052705
26362641
27242725
2721
2717
2713
2704
2657
2650
2657
2645
2633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
26362637
2800
2624
2632
26212625
26282625
2620262026212617
2656
2801
2652
26482649
2749
2757 27562757
2748
2632
2629
26282629
2624
27442747
2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
27092708
2701
2737
2733
2708
2700
2709
2700
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740 2736
2732
2701
2737 2704 27012701273227002733
27162717 26492648 2650
2643 264526442709
2729
2724 2657
26512648
26442708
2701 2634
2705 27052738
2701
2728
2720
2631 2630262826242624
2620 262126202651
2632
2625265526222622
2647 2614
2657
2713
26382637 2637
2616 2617 2614 2613
2607
2641 26002600
2610
2607
2619
2617
2612
26092608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725 2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
26362700 2635
2631
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
260126012631
52252544
293129372936
2934
29252955
2925
2926
29402939
293029332933
2929
29242922 2921
2909
2910
2904
2930
292029192918
29152916
2937
2855
2851
52102847
5124
2843
2839 2843
29212949
2917
2908 2905
2900
290129002856
5024
5032
2909 2907
2901
2925
2913 5116
2851
2901
2831 2835
2829
28422842
2835 28342834
2829
5024
2925
29162943
2816
2841 282428232822
28212835
51175123
520152072785 5200 51002747 50245032
2743
2772
2845 2825
2808
2815
2831 5025
51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
29042931 29002901
2919 2848
51005200
51322840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788 2751
2748
5100
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764 2725
2725
51245224
2777 2745 2744
2737
27312728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
271327422710
2750 2716
2709
28392832
28352824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
5033
51055217
5112
2800
2750
51182744
2743
2735 27382737
2765
2758
2719
2749
2708 27082709
500
Feet±
Legend
2017 Trails
Sidewalk Gaps
Existing Sidewalks
!!Existing Trails
Pavement Management &
Watermain Segments
Parcels
2017 Pavement Mangement and Sidewalks
Area 4 (Utica Avenue. S.)
Proposed trail (2017)
location to be determined.
Proposed Trail (2017)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 90
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«7WOO
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MINNETONKA BLVD
LAKESTW
BLACKSTONEAVESMI
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
YOSEMITEAVESCAMERATA WAYXENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESWALKERST33RD ST W
31ST ST W
WALKERST35TH ST W ZARTHANAVESALABAMAAVES33RD ST W
32ND ST W
HAMILTON ST
34TH ST W
32ND ST W YOSEMITEAVESXENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESBLACKSTONEAVESWEBSTERAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESW O O D D A LE A V E TO E B H W Y7W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E AV E S E R V IC E D R H IG H WA Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVES
6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
3031 3024
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3034
555530413033
3019
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
3019
3021
5707
3000
2949
3000
2948
2944
3020
5801
3004
3009
63126404
2938 2939
3024
5917
2948 2949 2934
2944 2945
3037 3035 30363034 3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000
5530
30016317
2954 2953
2955
30006325
5500
2953
6004
60126100
6104
2961
5600
2945
5912
2943
6020
2949
6200
2952
3020 3018
3020 3014
2940
5612
5908
2942
6000
6108611261166212
3013
3015 3011
3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3028
3030
3031303030313038
3016 30113011 56435647
3024
30253027
2934
2945
294429412940
2944 2941
2930
29412940
2936 2937
2940 2941
2941
2936 29242937
3010
3007
2936
2936 2925
3005
29312930
2936
5621
3025
30243025
6405
57082967
29482948
2944
2960
5904
2944
5920
2955
60086220
301530153016
2935
292429342937 2929 2925
2945 2936
2943
3007 3010 5639
6119 2945
2940
2937
2937 2924
2930
2932
6320
334433443355
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
33453345
3344 3340
3341 33413341 33363334
3350
3333
33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
5580
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333
33283339
3325
330833123308330932523316
330433043308
3317
33256037
332033263320
6031
3322
3317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
331333126126
3311
3308
6013
3305
6019
3317
3308
33043305
33003304
3272
3309 6007
33013301330063116325
3309
3260
3236 3275
3304 3274
3300
3244 33013300
3240 3272
3267
3268
3300
3278
3259 3267
3353 3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
6320
3256
3251
6300
3255
63126324
3263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
3240
3243 3236
32323237
5925
32443224324832443250 3250
32363220
32433243
32323236
3251
3253 326563046310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
33123312331233136120
3309 3280 330532483313
33003312
3301
3240
3216 3237 3244
3239
3230
3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239
3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3233
3228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
321632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226 5831
3224 3224322532253225
3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152
3220
32083209 3207
32793267
3267
3266 3273
327432563260
3216
32163212 3213
3212
3205
3209 3206
5826
3148 3205
5737
32013200
3248
324432283249 3255
3247
3253
3241 3242
3248
324132453237
3200
3201
31603200
3200
3208
6319
3156
3207
3209
3144
5733
3201
3161
3200 3201
3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
31523143
32283229
3230
3204
5827
3224
3223
32203224
3216 3217
3156 3213
57403144
3128
3141 3140
3140
3208
3213
3210
320432043205
5900
5820
3201
3157
5725
5814
3148
5808
3145
31413130
3129
3131 3127
3124
3134
3137
5726
3137
5732
3131
3135 5720
3112 3125
3118
5627
3131
3130 3133
3101
31293119
3117
5714
3113 3112
31213120
5623
31213104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3124
3114
3111
3051
3106
5700
3104
3101
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3105 3101
3110
56816017
5655566156655925
568556915708
6300
6005
5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316
3410
3400
567156753457
3456
6010
3520
3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
6216
6228
3459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
6200
34123413
60016005
6301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
3450
621163096317
3407
34303431
34256026
3425
3424 6018
3419 3416
6218
6418
59135917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214
34123413
3413
6401
3406 3409
3407
340034013401
5905
6329 3360
3369
6006
3361
600160053401
5725
6212
6024
6304
3468
58203379
3369
5906
3375
3397
3376
6210
336033693366
33573356
6
4
1
4
6013
3401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359
3348
59163365
3368
33643356
3356
5925
6009
3365
6216
3357
33526227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
3431
3424
3417
600662106224
3406
6422
6221
3355
33503349
3358 3349
3348
64163400
3400592560096201
572033723380
6220
5912
5922
3363
6012 3364 33656301
33603359
3353
3362
33523355
3348 3350
3349
6213
3354
3349
3524
5707
3548
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SORENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD
Legend
Not Recommened Sidewalks
Recommended Community Sidewalks
Recommended Neighborhood Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks- Community
Existing Sidewalks- Neighborhood
Removal of Existing Sidewalk Under Review
Recommended Community Trails
! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trails
Ü
SEE LAYOUT #3SEE LAYOUT #2SEE LAYOUT #1SEE LAYOUT #4SEE LAYOUT #5Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 78
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 91
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«100
VERNONAVE S
MIN
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D TOLEDO AVES28TH ST W
27TH ST W
29TH ST W
28TH ST W
27TH ST W
26TH ST W
UTICAAVES29TH ST W
28TH ST W
WEBSTERAVESSALEMAVESSBHWY100STOMINNETONKABLVDALLEY2921
2913
2917
2916
2828
2829
2830 2829
2910
2712
5622 5600
2939
5524
5530
2953
5500
5600
2945
2943
2940
5612
5703
2934
2941
2924
2925
2931
5621
2948
2944
2925
2908
29122913
2936
5639
2905
2900
2900
2909
2901
2847
28402840
2846
2841
2845
2930
2920
2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
2816
2814
2824
28212820
2821
2820
2834
2817
2812
2807
2808
2808 2809
2804
2824
2825
2817
2813
2801
2813
2805
2616
261326122613
2800
2804
2644
2640
2643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
2725
2712
2721
27052705
2636
2641
2724
2725
2721
2717
2713
2704
2657
2650
2657
2645
2633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
26362637
2800
2624
2632
26212625
2616
26282625
262026202621
2617
2656
2801
2652
26482649
2749
2757 2756
2757
2748
2632
2629
2628
2629
2624
2744
2611
2747
2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
2709
2708
2701
2617
2737
2733
2708
2700
2709
2700
2610
2609
26042605
2608
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740
2736
2732
2701
2737 2704
2701
2701273227002733
2716
2717
26492648 2650
26432644
2709
2729
2724
2657
2648
2644
2708
2701 2634
27052738
2728
2720
2631 2630
2628
2624
2624
2620 262126202651
2632
2655
26222622
2647
2614
2713
26382637
2616 2617
2614
2641
2600
2600
2610
2607
2617
2612
2609
2608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725
2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
2636
2700
2635
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
2601
2631
5225
2544
2937 2936
2934
2955
2925
2926
29402939
2930
29332933
2929
2924
2922
2910
2904
2930
29202919
2918
29152916
2937
2855
2851 5210
2847
5124
2843
2839
29212949
2917
2908
2900
29012900
2856
2909 2907
2925
2913
5116
2851
2901
2831
2829
28422842
2835
28342834
2829
2925
2916
2943
2816
2841
282428232822
2835
5117512352015207
2785 5200 5100
2747
2743
2772
2845
2808
2815
2831
51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
2904
2931
2900
2901
2919 2848
510052005132
2840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788
2751
2748
5100
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764
2725
51245224
2777
2745 2744
2728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
2742
2710
2750
2716
2709
2839
2832
2835
2824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
51055217
5112
2800
2750
5118
2744
2735
2738
2737
2765
2758
2749
2708 27082709
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
Legend
Not Recommened Sidewalks
Recommended Community Sidewalks
Recommended Neighborhood Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks- Community
Existing Sidewalks- Neighborhood
Recommended Community Trails
! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trails
Ü
SEE LAYOUT #6Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 79
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 92
")5
¬«7DAKOTAAVES VERNONAVESBLACKSTONEAVESYOSEMITEAVESZARTHANAVESWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MIN
N
ET
O
N
KABLVD
XENWOODAVESW ALKERST33RD ST W
31ST ST W
35TH ST W
32ND ST W
33RD ST W
HAMILTON ST
34TH ST W
32ND ST W
DAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESS E R V IC E D R H IG H W A Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVES6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
3200
3031 3024
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3049
3034 55553041
3045
3033
3019
3025
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
30193021
5707
3000 3000
3020
5801
3004
3009
3024
5917
3037 30353041 30363034
3037
3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000
5530
30016317
2954 2953
3000
6417 6325
5500
6012
5600
2943
6020
2952
3020
3021
3018
3020 3014
5612
301330153011
3017 3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3029 3028
30303031303030313038
3016 30113011
564356473024
30253027
3010
3007
3005
5621
3025
30243025642564136405
570829675920
301530153016
3007 3010
56393250
330029556320
334433443355
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
3345
3345 3344 3340
3341 33413341 333633343350
3333 33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333 33283339
3325
33083312330833093252
3316
330433043308
3317
33256037
3320332633206031
3322 3317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
33133312
61263311
3308
6013
3305
6019
3317 3308
33043305
33003304
3272
3309
6007
33013301330063116325
3309
3260
3237 3236 3275
3304 32743249
3300
3244 33013300
3240 327232673268
3300
3278
32593233 3267
3353 3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
63203256
3251
63003255
631263243263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
3240322132433236
32323237
5925
32443225322432483244
3250 3250
32363220 32433243
323232173236
3251
3253 3265
63043229
6310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
33123312331233136120
3253 3309 3280 330532483313
33003312
3301
3240
3216 3237 32443239
3230 3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239 3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3205 3233
3228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
321632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226
5
8
3
1
3224 3224322532253225
3201 3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152
3220
32083209 3207
3241
3279
3267
3266 3273
32743256
3260
3216
32163212 3213
32123153 320532093206
5826
3149 3148 3205
5737
32013200
3248
324432283249 3255
3247 3253
3241 3242 3248
324132453237
3213
3200
3201 31603200
3200
3208
63193141 3156
3207
3209
3145 3144 5
7
3
3
3201
31613200
3201
3137 3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
315231433133
3209 32283229
3230
3204 58273224 3223
32203224
3216 3217
3157 3156 3213
57403144
3129 3128 3141 31403140
320832133210
320432043205
5900
5820
3201
3157
57255814
3148
5808
3145
31413130
3129
3131 31273124
3134
3137
57263137
3125
5732
3131
3135 5720
3112 3125 3118
3117
5627
3121 3131
3130 3133
3101
3129311931073117
5714
3113 3112
31213120 5623
312131013104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3113 3124
3114
3111
3051
3106
3057
5700
3104
3053 3101
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3105 3101
3110
60176300 6005 5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316 34573456
6010
3520
3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
621662283459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
62006500
34123413
600160056301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
34506211
63096317
3407
34303431
34256026
3425
3424 6018
3419
62186418 5913
5917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214 341234133413
6401
3406 34093407
340034013401
5905
6329 3360
3369
6006
3361
600160053401
5725
6212
602463043468
58203379
3369
59005906
337533973376
6210336033693366 33573356
641460133401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359 3348
59163365
3368
33643356
3356
5925
60093365
6216
33576227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
34313424
6520
3417
600662106224
3406
6422 62213355
335033493358 3349 3348
64163400
3400
5925
60096201
572033723380622059125922
3363
3364 33656301
33603359
33533362 335233553348 33503349
6213
3354
3349
3000
3524
5707
20
262621.5261,000
Feet±
Street Widths
Under 28 ft.
28 ft.
30 ft.
Parcels
2017 Pavement Management Area 4 (Sorensen Neighborhood)
Proposed Street Widths
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 93
¬«100
29TH ST W
27TH ST W
MINNETONKA BLVD
26TH ST W
27TH ST W
28TH ST W
29TH ST WTOLEDOAVES28TH ST W UTICAAVESSALEMAVESXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTERAVESVERNONAVESVERNONAVESRALEIGHAVESRALEIGHAVESALLEY2921
2913
2917
2916
2828
2829
2830 2829
2910
2712
2939
293455245530
2953
5500
5600
29452943
29522940
5612
5643
56472934
294129302924
2925
2931
5621
2948
294429442925
2908
291229122913
2936
5639
2905
2900
2900
2909
29042901
29002847
28402840
2846
2841
28402845
29242930
29202920 2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
28322816
2814
2824
28212820282828212824 2820
28342836281728202812
2807
2808
2808 2809
2804
2824
2825
2817
2813
2801
2813
28052810 2616
261326122613
28002614
2816280426482644
2640
2643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
27182725
27242712
2721
27052705
2636
2641
2724
2725
2721
2717
27132706 2704
2657
2650
2657
264526402633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
265426362637
2800
2624
2632
2621262526202616
26282625
2620262026212617
2656
280126562652
26482649
2749
27482757 2756
2757
2748
2632
2629
262826292630 2624
2744
2754274727422736 2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
2709
2708
2701
2617
2737
27332712 2708
27002700
2709
2700
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740
2736
2732
27302701
2737 2704
2701
2701273227002733
2716
2717
26492648 2650
2643 26452644
2709
2729
2724
2657
2651
2648
26442708
2701 2634
2705 27052738
2701
2728
2720
2631 2630
2628
2624
2624
2620 262126202651
2632
26252655
26222622
2647
2614
2657
2713
26382637 2637
2616 2617
2614 2613
2607
2641
2600
2600
2610
2607
2619
2617
2612
2609
2608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725
2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
26362700
2635
2631
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
26012601
2631
5225
2544
2931293729362934
2925
2955
2925
2926
2939
293029332933
2929
2924
2922 2921
2909
2910
2904
2930
29202919
2918
29152916
2937
2855
2851 5210
2847
5124
2843
2839
2843
29212949
2917
2908
2905
2900
29012900
2856 50245032
2909 2907
2901
2925
2913
5116
2851
2901
2831
2835
2829
28422842
2835
28342834
2829
2925
2916
2943
2816
2841
282428232822
2821
2835
5117512352015207
2785 5200 5100
2747 5032
2743
2772
2845 2825
2808
2815
2831 51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
2904
2931
2900
2901
2919 2848
510052005132
2840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788
2751
2748
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764 2725
2725
2777
2745 2744
2737
27312728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
27132742
2710
2750
2716
2709
2839
2832
2835
2824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
503351055217
2800
2750
5118
2744
2743
2735
2738
2737
2765
2758
2719
2749
2708 27082709
500
Feet±
Street Widths
28 ft.
32 ft.
Parcels
2017 Pavement Management Area 4 (Birchwood Neighborhood)
Proposed Street Widths
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 94
Sidewalk Segment #1
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 95
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 96
Sidewalk Segment #2
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 97
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 98
Sidewalk Segment #3
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 99
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 100
Sidewalk Segment #5
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 101
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 102
Sidewalk Segment #6
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 103
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 104
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 105
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 106
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 107
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 108
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 109
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 110
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 111
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 112
Sidewalk Segment #7
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 113
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 114
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 115
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 116
Sidewalk Segment #8
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 117
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 118
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 119
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 120
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 121
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 122
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 123
Sidewalk Segment #9
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 124
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 125
Sidewalk Segment #12
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 126
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 127
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 128
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 129
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 130
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 131
Sidewalk Segment #15
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 132
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 133
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 134
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 135
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 136
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 137
Sidewalk Segment #16
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 138
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 139
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 140
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 141
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 142
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 143
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 144
Sidewalk Segment #17
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 145
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 146
Sidewalk Segment #18
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 147
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 148
Sidewalk Segment #20
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 149
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 150
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 151
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 152
Sidewalk Segment #21
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 153
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 154
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 155
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 156
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 157
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 158
Sidewalk Segment #22
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 159
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 160
Sidewalk Segment #25
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 161
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 162
Sidewalk Segment #27
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 163
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 164
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 165
Sidewalk Segment #28
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 166
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 167
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 168
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 169
Sidewalk Segment #29
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 170
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 171
Sidewalk Segment #37
Resident Feedback
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Page 172
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 173
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 174
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 175
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 176
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 177
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 178
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 179
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 180
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 181
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 182
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 183
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 184
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 185
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 186
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 187
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 188
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 189
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 190
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 191
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 192
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6b) Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction ProjectPage 193
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Library Lane LLC (Marge Nelson) – 3338 Library Lane
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny the applications for a 256 square
foot variance to allow 1,056 square feet of ground floor area for accessory buildings.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the Council uphold the BOZA decision to deny the
variance?
SUMMARY: The Appellant is requesting a 256 square foot variance to allow up to 1,056 square
feet of accessory building instead of the 800 square feet maximum allowed by code. The purpose
of the request is to build a second two-car garage.
The BOZA conducted a public hearing, and voted 3-1 to deny the application. The BOZA made
the following findings:
a. 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 consisting of a duplex and
up to 800 square feet of accessory building.
b. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot which
prevent a reasonable use.
c. The need for a variance is the result of the applicant’s decision to construct a 572 square foot
detached garage, leaving only 228 square feet available for a second garage, which is sufficient
for a one-car garage, but not a two-car garage. Whereas, the applicant could have constructed
two 400 square foot two-car garages.
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or difficulties under the terms of the zoning
ordinance, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do not exist.
The appellant can appeal within 10 days of the BOZA decision. The BOZA decision was made
on November 29, 2016, and an appeal was submitted to the City on December 6, 2016, so the
appeal is timely and can be heard by the council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Resolution
Appeal Letter
Pictures of Property
Letters from Neighbors (Submitted to BOZA)
BOZA Resolution Denying Variances
BOZA Staff Report w/ Attachments (November 29, 2016)
BOZA Minutes – (November 29, 2016)
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Page 2
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane
DISCUSSION
The BOZA heard the variance application on November 29, 2016. Four members were present
(Gainsley, Solmer, Roberts and Kaufman), one member was absent (Bloyer). The BOZA
conducted the public hearing and denied the application for the variance on a 3-1 vote. Gainsley,
Solmer and Roberts voted to deny the variance, Kaufman opposed the motion.
As indicated in the official minutes, three of the BOZA members agreed that the critical criteria
for granting a variance for the garage could not be justified. They cited that the request goes
against the Comprehensive Plan. That a hardship doesn’t exist, the request is based on a desire for
additional garage space. It was also noted that the twin home is a legally non-conforming use, and
the request for additional garage space is an expansion of the non-conformity.
Kaufman, who voted in favor of the variance, noted that the late discovery of the code section
limiting the amount of garage space can be a practical difficulty and provides some justification
for the variance. He also noted that the rule generally makes sense, but the law on its own doesn’t
account for the specific nature of this property which makes it unique and justifies granting a
variance. Specifically, the lot is a corner lot, and it is a larger lot than most in the neighborhood
(see aerial below).
A copy of the staff report to BOZA further describing the variance request and the unofficial
BOZA minutes is attached for your review.
Details about the variance request can be found in the attached BOZA report.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Page 3
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND DECISION
UPHOLDING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BOZA)
DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY LIBRARY LANE LLC FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3338 LIBRARY LANE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the
following Findings and Decision are adopted upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
denial of the variance applications of Library Lane LLC, for property located at 3338 Library Lane.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On or about October 28, 2016, Library Lane LLC filed a written request for a
variance related to the ground floor area allowed for accessory buildings. Specifically, the
applicant requested a 256 square foot variance to the required 800 square foot maximum allowed.
2. On November 29, 2016, the request came on for hearing before BOZA.
3. BOZA voted 3-1 to deny both variances. The BOZA adopted Resolution 03-16.
4. Library Lane LLC appealed the decision to the City Council on December 6, 2016.
5. City Council held a public hearing for the appeal on February 6, 2016.
6. The record consists of the following:
a. Council staff report – February 6, 2016
b. Draft resolution upholding the BOZA determination
c. Letter of appeal to city council, dated December 6, 2016.
d. BOZA resolution denying appeal
e. BOZA staff report with attachments – November 29, 2016
f. BOZA minutes (unofficial) – November 29, 2016
g. Exhibits submitted to BOZA at the public hearing.
(i) Letters of support from neighbors.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located at 3338 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Subject
Property”).
2. The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single-Family Residence.
3. The applicant is seeking to construct a second garage that will result in a total
ground floor area of 1,056 square feet, which is 256 square feet more than allowed by code.
4. The Council finds that the variance requests do not meet the following criteria:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Page 4
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane
A. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
and not created by the landowner.
The application for a variance is the result of the appellant’s decision to construct a 572
square foot detached garage leaving only 228 square feet available for a second garage,
which is sufficient for a one-car garage, but not a two-car garage. Whereas the appellant
could have constructed two 400 square foot two-car garages.
B. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right. The property has a reasonable use consisting of a duplex, and the city code
allows up to 800 square feet of accessory building.
C. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography,
water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot
which prevent a reasonable use.
D. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the Zoning Ordinance.
There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or difficulties under the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do not
exist.
DECISION
Based upon the above findings, the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of Library Lane
LLC’s variance application is upheld. This appeal to the City Council is denied.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6,
2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
(SEAL)
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 5
The following pictures were submitted by the Appellant. They show pictures of the property before and
after renovations they completed
Picture of the front of the home taken from Library Lane
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 6
Picture taken from the corner of 1st Street and the alley taken of the
property’s back yard. This shows how the back yard was taken up
with gravel parking spaces.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 7
Picture taken facing east. 1st Street is located on the other side of
the privacy fence. This shows how the back yard was taken up with
gravel parking spaces.
Picture taken from the alley taken of the property’s back yard. This
shows how the back yard was taken up with gravel parking spaces.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 8
Picture of new garage built in 2016. Proposed garage would
be built to the left if the variance is approved.
Picture taken from 1st St of side of duplex and new garage in the back yard.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 9
Picture taken from 1st St. Shows the new garage and location of proposed
garage (where the car is parked).
Picture taken from 1st St. Shows the condition of the property prior to
renovations. Shows same angle as picture above.
AFTER
BEFORE
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 10
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 11
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 12
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 13
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 14
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 15
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 16
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 17
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 18
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 19
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 20
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 21
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 22
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 23
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 24
4A Variance to the Accessory Building Ground Floor Area
Location: 3338 Library Lane
Applicant: Library Lane LLC (Marge Nelson)
Case No.: 16-42-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 256 square
foot variance to allow 1,056 square feet of ground floor area for
accessory buildings instead of the 800 square feet maximum
allowed.
REQUEST:
The Applicant, Marge Nelson, is requesting a 256 square foot variance to the required 800 square
foot ground floor area maximum for accessory buildings. She owns a duplex, and would like to
have two detached garages (one per dwelling unit) for a total of 1,056 square feet.
LOCATION:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 25
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (RL)
Zoning: R-2 Single-Family Residence
Existing Conditions: The property is improved with a side-by-side duplex which was
constructed in 1949. The duplex became legally non-conforming in 1959 when the current R-2
Single-Family Residence district was established, and two-family dwellings were not allowed.
In September of 2016 a building permit was issued for a 22 x 26 foot garage. In conjunction
with the garage, the applicant constructed a 22 x 22 foot concrete slab next to the garage. The
intent of the slab is to construct another garage on top of the slab if the variance is approved, or
to use it for parking if the variance is denied.
Prior to constructing the garage and slab, there were five off-street parking spaces located in the
back yard accessed from the alley.
Below is a picture of the subject property’s back yard.
Proposal: The applicant would like to construct a second detached garage that is slightly smaller
than the first garage, 22 x 22 feet. The second garage would be constructed on the concrete slab
constructed last month. There is currently a 22 x 26 foot detached garage on the site. The total
square feet of the existing and proposed garages is 1,056 square feet, which is 256 square feet
more than allowed by code.
The applicant desires two detached garages so each dwelling unit will have a private two-car
garage. One garage is slightly larger to accommodate storage for property maintenance equipment.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 26
Current Zoning Regulations: The property is zoned R-2 Single-Family Residence. Two-family
dwellings are not permitted in this district, and the existing duplex is legally non-conforming.
City code allows up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings per single-family and non-
conforming two-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts. Since the subject property is a
legally non-conforming duplex, it is limited to 800 square feet of accessory buildings.
The section of city code that is the subject of the variance is as follows:
City Code Section 36-162(d)(2)a.
The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings on single-family lots and on non-
conforming two-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts shall not exceed the smaller of 800 square
feet or 25 percent of the back yard. This provision shall not prohibit the construction of a detached
garage that is no greater than 576 square feet in area provided there are no other accessory buildings.
ANALYSIS:
As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to
ruling on a variance. Staff has provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicant has
also provided an analysis of each point in the attached letter.
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
The intent of the maximum accessory building area is to promote and preserve open space on
residential lots and to ensure that accessory buildings remain smaller than the principal
building. The purpose of the open space is to provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the
residents and to preserve areas for water to infiltrate into the ground as opposed to runoff into
R-2 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON
STANDARDS
MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT
PROPOSED/EXISTING
DIMENSION
Minimum lot size: 7,200 square feet 10,495 square feet (existing)
Minimum lot width (corner lot): 70 feet 75 feet (existing)
Principal building setbacks:
Minimum front yard 34.9 feet 34.5 feet (existing)
Interior side yard (west side) 5.0 feet 3.9 feet (existing)
Side yard abutting a street (east side) 15 feet 11.1 feet (existing)
Minimum rear yard 25.0 feet 139.87 feet (existing)
Accessory building setbacks:
Interior side yard (west side) 2.0 feet 4.6 feet (existing)
Side yard abutting a street (east side) 15.0 feet 16.1 feet (proposed)
Rear yard 2.0 feet 9.0 feet (existing & proposed)
Accessory building maximum ground
floor area ratio (GFAR)
800 square feet 1,056 square feet (proposed)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 27
the public storm water system. The proposed project, with the variance, however, will actually
increase the amount of open space that currently exists on the property, and it will decrease the
amount of impervious surface. There is currently approximately 2,048 square feet of gravel
parking area, and the proposed garages, including driveway and sidewalk between the garages
is approximately 1,683 square feet.
Approval of the variance will result in 1,056 square feet of detached garage in the back yard
instead of the 800 maximum allowed by code. The increased building mass is out of character
for the neighborhood, however, this is the only duplex in the immediate vicinity, and the
majority of the lots in the neighborhood are 50 feet wide. The subject property is 75 feet wide,
so the additional lot area may off-set the additional accessory building ground floor area.
The applicant states that it will no longer be necessary to store toys and lawn equipment
outside. However, the existing 24x26 garage includes room for storage. Also, the applicant
could construct a second building, up to 176 square feet, that can be used for storage without
a variance.
The applicant also states that if the variance is approved, it will no longer be necessary to park
six vehicles on the street which can create a problem for emergency vehicles. As noted in the
report, there are currently five parking spaces in the back yard, so it should not be necessary to
park six vehicles on the street. (Although the property is a corner lot, and there are several on-
street parking spaces available.) Additionally, vehicles parked on both sides of the street is
common in St. Louis Park, and does not present a problem for emergency vehicles.
While the request is for 256 square feet of accessory building more than allowed by code, the
resulting project as proposed will actually improve the open space available for the property,
reduce the impervious surface, and provide indoor storage opportunities for both tenants in the
duplex. Staff believes this criterion has been met.
2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting a variance to provide a two-car garage for each of the dwelling
units. This request is similar to the section of city code that allows each single-family home
to have a two-car garage, even if a two-car garage up to 576 square feet exceeds the maximum
ground floor area allowed. The requested variance is to allow 1,056 square feet of garage
space for two dwelling units, which equates to 528 square feet per dwelling unit, 48 square feet
less than what is typical for a single-family home.
The request, however, is not consistent with the intent of the section of code that is the subject
of the variance request, which is to keep the amount of accessory building at legally non-
conforming duplexes consistent with what the neighboring single-family properties are
allowed to have.
3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to “Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing
homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 28
garages and other amenities.” The maximum of 800 square feet of accessory building is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 800 square feet can be split into two 20 x 20
detached garages so that each dwelling unit in the duplex can have a private two-car garage
without a variance.
Staff finds that this criterion has not been satisfied.
4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means:
a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A
variance can be requested for dimensional items only.
Duplexes are not a permitted use in the R-2 Single-Family district. The existing duplex is
legally non-conforming, and as such it is allowed to continue as a legally non-conforming
use. The code states that legally non-conforming duplexes can be improved with up to 800
square feet of accessory buildings.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner.
The property is allowed up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings. This is sufficient to
construct two 20 x 20 foot garages. 20 x 20 feet is the smallest practical two-car garage
that can be built. This is sufficient to park two vehicles, but does not leave room for storage
in addition to the vehicles.
The property owner applied for a building permit to construct the 22 x 26 garage and the
22 x 22 foot garage at the same time. Upon receipt of the building permit application, the
applicant was notified that the request exceeded the 800 square feet allowed. Options were
discussed which includes constructing two 400 square foot garages, or one 800 square foot
garage. Either would accommodate four vehicles. The applicant opted to proceed with the
22 x 26 foot garage, and ask for a variance for the second garage. Staff informed them that
this places the BOZA in a position of considering a variance that could have been avoided
had they not proceeded with the construction of the large garage. The reasons for
proceeding with the construction of the larger garage are discussed in the applicant’s letter
which is attached. The reasons stated include needing additional space for storage of
property maintenance equipment. They also note that some tenants have large trucks that
do not fit in a 20 x 20 garage.
While two 20 x 20 foot garages may not accommodate oversized trucks, staff believes they
would accommodate most parking needs, and that consideration for a variance should not
include a use or machine as transient as a specific vehicle a current tenant may own.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The 800 square foot maximum allowed is applied to all the properties in the district to
minimize the impact the accessory buildings have visually from the adjacent properties,
and also directly by way of shading.
The addition of detached garages on this site will improve the character of the area by
providing opportunities to store vehicles and equipment inside. The variance to construct
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 29
256 square feet more of garages than allowed by code will not alter the essential character
of the area. The garages are accessed by an alley, so the additional length created by two
garages built side-by-side will not shade or visually obstruct the neighbor located directly
behind them.
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
In addition to the benefits of the detached garages discussed above, the additional garage
space can be viewed as an amenity that aids in attracting and retaining renters.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
This is not applicable to the application.
5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
The property is a corner lot, rectangular, flat and accessed by an alley. It is 75 feet wide which
is five feet more than the 70 foot lot width required for corner lots. There are no known
physical characteristics that impede the normal use of the property.
6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The code allows up to 800 square feet of garage space, which can accommodate four standard
sized vehicles. In addition to the garage, there is sufficient room in the back yard to construct
off-street parking spaces without impacting the useable open space utilized by the residents.
Additionally, the applicant had the ability to construct two garages without a variance, but
decided to proceed with the construction of one oversized two-car garage (22 x 26) knowing
they would need a variance for the second garage as proposed.
The applicant states that the materials for the 22 x 26 and 22 x 22 garages were purchased after
talking with city staff. They were informed that they can have up to 1,200 square feet of
detached garages, so the materials were ordered, and cannot be returned. Unfortunately, they
were misinformed. Duplexes in the R-3 Two-Family Residence can have up to 1,200 square
feet, however, legally non-conforming duplexes in the R-2 Single-Family Residence district,
such as the subject property, are limited to 800 square feet. While the error is unfortunate,
errors on the part of city staff or property owners cannot be the grounds for granting a variance.
Staff believes the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right.
7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
As noted above, the garages are accessed by an alley, so the additional length of the garages
that would result from the additional 256 square feet of garage space will not impact the
neighboring property located on the other side of the alley.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 30
8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
As noted above, the code allows up to 800 square feet of garage space, which is the equivalent
of two 400 square foot garages each being 20 x 20 feet. The applicant states that the additional
space is needed to fit large trucks, toys and maintenance equipment. Staff does not believe a
variance should be granted to accommodate a particular vehicle a current tenant owns.
Additionally, off-street parking spaces can be constructed on the property to accommodate the
larger vehicles.
Staff finds that this criterion has not been satisfied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds the proposed application for a 256 square foot variance to the required 800 square foot
maximum ground floor area for accessory buildings does not meet the criterion required for
granting a variance.
Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution denying the requested 256 square
foot variance to allow up to 1,056 square feet of accessory building instead of the 800 square feet
maximum allowed.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS:
Aerial
Proposed resolution
Letter from applicant
Survey
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 31
AERIAL PHOTO
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 32
BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 256 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED
800 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING GROUND
FLOOR AREA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3338 LIBRARY LANE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. On October 28, 2016, Marge Nelson, on behalf of Library Lane, LLC applied for a variance
from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-162(d)(2)a to allow up to 1,059
square feet of accessory building ground floor area instead of the 800 square foot maximum
allowed for a legally non-conforming duplex in the R-2 Single-Family Residence District.
2. The property is located at 3338 Library Lane and described below as follows, to wit:
Lots 17, 18, and 19, Block 194, REARRANGEMENT OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 16-42-
VAR on November 22, 2016.
4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning
Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements of
Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning
Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings:
a. 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 a reasonable use consisting of
a duplex and the city code allows up to 800 square feet of accessory buildings.
c. The need for a variance is the result of the applicant’s decision to construct a 572
square foot detached garage leaving only 228 square feet available for a second garage,
which is sufficient for a one-car garage, but not a two-car garage. Whereas the applicant
could have constructed two 400 square foot two-car garages.
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or difficulties under the terms of the
Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting
the requested variance do not exist.
5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 16-42-VAR are hereby entered into
and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 33
CONCLUSION
The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested 256 square foot variance to allow up to
1,056 square feet of accessory building instead of the 800 square feet maximum allowed for the
property located at 3338 Library Lane.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: November 29, 2016
Effective date: December 9, 2016
___________________________
Paul Roberts, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 34
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 35
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 36
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 37
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 38
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 39
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library LanePage 40
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 29, 2016
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on November 29,
2016, 6:00 p.m., at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park,
Minnesota – Council Chambers
Members Present: James Gainsley, Justin Kaufman, Paul Roberts,
Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Susan Bloyer
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Roberts called the meeting to order.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2016
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of
June 23, 2016. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Square footage accessory buildings
Location: 3338 Library Lane
Applicant: Library Lane, LLC (Marge Nelson)
Case No.: 16-42-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
stated that the applicant, Marge Nelson, is requesting a 256 square foot variance
to the required 800 square foot ground floor area maximum for accessory
buildings. She is the owner of a duplex, and would like to have two detached
garages (one per dwelling unit) for a total of 1,056 square feet.
Mr. Morrison said the property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential. The
duplex became legally non-conforming in 1959 when the current R-2 SF district
was established. There is one existing garage and one proposed garage. Mr.
Morrison explained that the applicant approached the city in the summer of 2016
and expressed interest in building two garages in the backyard. They asked what
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 41
they can do and they were informed that they could have up to 1200 sq. ft. of
accessory building. They put together a proposal which totaled 1056 sq. ft. They
ordered the materials and submitted the building permit. At that time during the
zoning review it was discovered that the duplex is a legally non-conforming
duplex which means it does not qualify for the 1200 sq. ft. exception. It is bound
by the 800 sq. ft. limit that is applicable to all single family properties in the R-2
zoning district. Options were discussed with the applicant. Mr. Morrison said
the applicant ultimately decided to proceed with the plans presented and
constructed the first garage and decided to hold off on construction of the second
garage until they could apply for a variance.
Mr. Morrison reviewed City Code Section 36-162(d)(2)a regarding accessory
buildings ground floor area 800 sq. ft. maximum allowed for non-conforming
two-family lots.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the R-2 District standards comparison of minimum
requirement and proposed/existing dimension.
Mr. Morrison provided the staff analysis of the criteria used to review a variance
application. He said though staff recognizes the effect of the variance on
neighboring properties would be minimal, some of the findings are not met to
necessitate a variance. Primarily that the applicant had other options to meet
code, so in a way they created the hardship. Staff finds the proposed application
for a 256 square foot variance to the required 800 square foot maximum ground
floor area for accessory buildings does not meet the criterion required for granting
a variance. Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommends adoption of a resolution
denying the variance.
Commissioner Gainsley asked if there were restrictions from any utilities on the
land.
Mr. Morrison responded there are no restrictions from utility companies. He
added that the property line is about 15 ft. away from the street curb.
Chair Roberts opened the public hearing.
Gene Nelson, 9133 Breckenridge Lane, Eden Prairie, stated that he’s had a
business in St. Louis Park at 4601 Excelsior Blvd since 1974. He said his son
lives at 3338 Library Lane and intends to continue living there. He spoke about
the improvements that have been made to the property. He spoke about the need
for garages for safety and aesthetics reasons. Neighbors have remarked on the
improvements made to the property. He stated that the applicant got bids for the
garages. The construction companies told them they knew what was allowed in
the city. He said the applicant decided to proceed and purchased their materials.
The slab was laid. Mr. Nelson said when they went to city they found out that
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 42
they had 800 sq. allowed for accessory buildings on which they could build. The
city told them they might not be granted a variance. Mr. Nelson spoke about
the large size of the lot.
Marge Nelson, applicant, said they have invested a lot into the property. Their
son Spencer is living there. They didn’t go into the process thinking they would
build something against the code. Ms. Nelson said it wasn’t until the contractor
submitted the plans that they were told what was allowed. She said they had one
day to decide and materials were purchased. She spoke about community
support for their improvements. Ms. Nelson stated their goal was to get vehicles
and sports equipment under a roof. She said they were told three times by the
construction companies that they could proceed with their plans.
Commissioner Solmer asked the applicant when she learned that the property was
zoned R-2.
Ms. Nelson said they learned the zoning designation when they submitted the
plans.
Spencer Nelson, 3336 Library Lane, spoke about the great location of the
property. He said he is a cyclist and sports enthusiast and has sports equipment,
lawn equipment, and large vehicles to keep in the garage. He said he wants the
same situation for the tenant. He forwarded neighborhood petitions in support of
the variance to the board.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley said the desire for the variance goes against the
Comprehensive Plan. He said there is difficulty seeing hardship as it is based on
convenience and desire to have the garages. He commented that money has been
spent, but if it goes against the code, it is the law. He said an inspector or city
employee doesn’t have the authority to vary a zoning law. It’s the law.
Commissioner Kaufman spoke about hardship and practical difficulties, and said
the late discovery of the zoning designation might provide some justification for
practical difficulties. He said the rules generally make sense but they don’t
account for the specific nature of a specific property. He said perhaps there is
some hardship and some ability to go that direction.
Commissioner Solmer said it was stated repeatedly that the property is a triple lot.
He asked if the lot was empty could three single family residential homes be built
on it.
Mr. Morrison responded that it is a triple lot in the sense that when it was
originally platted the whole area was platted with 25 ft. wide lots. People
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 43
typically bought two, and sometimes three, of them to create their lot. He said in
this case these have been combined in one lot and today the city would not let it
be split again.
Commissioner Solmer stated it is a legally non-conforming use of the property
and the board is being asked to expand the non-conformity and to treat it as
though it is a conforming property. He said that is in effect a rezoning and he
stated he doesn’t think that is appropriate here.
Chair Roberts stated he agrees with Commissioner Solmer. He said the applicant
has done a great job with the property but it is a non-conforming property. He
said the zoning code is pretty clear here and the board is not in the business of
rewriting code, it interprets code.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to deny the variance, based upon the staff
report, adding that he sees no reason to grant the variance.
The motion to deny the variance passed on a vote of 3-1 (Kaufman opposed).
Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council. The 10-
day appeal period ends December 9.
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business: None
7. Communications
Mr. Morrison said a board meeting is scheduled for December 22. It was
determined that there will be a quorum. Mr. Morrison said he expects to have a
2016 annual report for the board available for review at that meeting.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6c)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – 3338 Library Lane Page 44
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny the applications for a 20.7 foot
variance to the required 25.0 foot rear yard, and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side
yard required for a proposed addition to a home located at 3951 Quentin Ave S.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the Council uphold the BOZA decision to deny the
variances to the side and rear yards?
SUMMARY: The Applicant, Kim Erickson is requesting a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25
foot rear yard and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard to construct an addition to
the home and garage. The purpose of the addition is to expand the kitchen and attached garage.
The BOZA conducted a public hearing, and voted 2-1 to deny the application.
The BOZA reviewed the applications and made the following findings:
a. 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, and there is a reasonable
legal alternative to build additions and a garage on the property.
b. Granting of the requested side yard variance would impair light and air to the neighboring
property. It encroaches on the setback designed to protect the light and air of the neighbor’s
back yard.
c. The variance to the rear yard would result in the garage being located approximately 10 feet
from the neighbor’s bedroom windows.
The appellant can appeal within 10 days of the BOZA decision. The BOZA decision was made
on December 22, 2016, and an appeal was submitted to the City on December 29, 2016, so the
appeal is timely and can be heard by the council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Resolution
Appeal Letter
Pictures of Property
Letters from Neighbors (Submitted to BOZA)
BOZA Resolution Denying Variances
BOZA Staff Report w/ Attachments (December 22, 2016)
BOZA Minutes (unofficial) – (December 22, 2016)
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Page 2
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.
DISCUSSION
The BOZA heard the variance application on December 22, 2016. Three members were present
(Gainsley, Bloyer and Solmer), two members were absent (Roberts and Kaufman). The BOZA
conducted the public hearing and denied the application for both variances on a 2-1 vote. Gainsley
and Solmer voted to deny the variances, Bloyer opposed the motion.
As indicated in the unofficial minutes, two of the BOZA members agreed that the critical criteria
for granting a variance for the garage could not be justified. They cited that the proposed garage
expansion would bring the garage closer to the neighbor’s bedroom windows which creates an
adverse impact to the adjacent property. Additionally, there are options available to the property
owner for creating more garage space without the need for a variance. Specifically, instead of
adding onto the garage as requested, the applicant could remove the garage, and build a two-car
garage in the back yard.
Commissioner Bloyer was in favor of granting both variances because she felt the request was
reasonable, the lot is odd shaped and prevented a reasonable and legal option, and she concluded
that the option to build a detached garage in the back yard was unreasonable because:
1. It greatly reduces the size of the back yard.
2. It leaves the remaining back yard nearly inaccessible.
3. Activities in the back yard, including children playing, is not visible from the home.
A copy of the unofficial BOZA minutes is attached for your review.
Details regarding the application can be found in the attached BOZA staff report.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Page 3
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave S.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND DECISION
UPHOLDING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BOZA)
DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY KIM ERICKSON FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3951 QUENTIN AVE S
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the
following Findings and Decision are adopted upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
denial of the variance applications of Kim Erickson, for property located at 3951 Quentin Ave S.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On or about October 28, 2016, Kim Erickson filed a written request for a variance
related to the rear yard setback and the interior side setback. Specifically, the applicant requested
a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard, and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4
interior side yard.
2. On December 22, 2016, the request came on for hearing before BOZA.
3. BOZA voted 2-1 to deny both variances. The BOZA adopted Resolution 04-16.
4. Kim Erickson appealed the decision to the City Council on December 29, 2016.
5. This matter came on for hearing before the City Council on February 6, 2016.
6. The record consists of the following:
a. Council staff report – February 6, 2016
b. Draft resolution upholding the BOZA determination
c. Letter of appeal to city council, dated December 29, 2016 with enclosures
(i) Letter of support from neighbor at 4921 Vallacher Ave, dated
December 21, 2016
(ii) Letter of support from neighbor at 3961 Quentin Ave S, dated
December 19, 2016.
(iii) Pictures of the property.
d. BOZA resolution denying appeal
e. BOZA staff report with attachments – December 22, 2016
f. BOZA minutes (unofficial) – December 22, 2016
g. Exhibits submitted to BOZA at the public hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located at 3951 Quentin Ave S, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Subject
Property”).
2. The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single-Family Residence.
3. The applicant is seeking to expand the kitchen and garage.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Page 4
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave S.
4. The Council finds that the variance requests do not meet the following criteria:
A. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance.
The intent of the setbacks is to preserve space between the building and the
neighbor’s back yard and home. The side yard variance request encroaches on the
neighbor’s open space, and the rear yard variance request would place the proposed
garage 10 feet from the neighbor’s bedroom instead of the 30 feet minimum
required by city code.
B. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The requested variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use, and there is a
reasonable legal alternative to build additions and a garage on the property.
C. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the
surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
Granting of the requested variances would impair light and air to the neighboring
properties. It encroaches on the setbacks which are intended to protect the light and
air of the neighbor’s property.
DECISION
Based upon the above findings, the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of Kim Erickson’s
variance application is upheld. This appeal to the City Council is denied.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6,
2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
(SEAL)
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 5
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 6
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 7
Picture taken from Quentin showing porch between house and garage.
Picture taken from Quentin showing space between appellant’s garage
and neighbor’s house. This is where the garage addition is proposed.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 8
Picture taken from Quentin showing south side of garage.
Picture shows space between back of house and neighbor’s property line
(fence). This is the area where the kitchen addition is proposed.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 9
Picture of back of the porch. This wall will be removed for the proposed
kitchen addition.
Picture shows space between back of house and neighbor’s property line
(fence). This is the area where the kitchen addition is proposed.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 10
Picture shows space between back of house and neighbor’s property line
(fence). This is the area where the kitchen addition is proposed.
Picture of south wall of the garage. This wall will be removed for the
garage addition.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 11
Picture taken from Quentin Ave. Shows the house and garage. Porch is
located behind the shrubs.
Picture taken from Quentin Ave. Shows the house, porch and garage.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 12
Picture taken from the back of the porch looking to the backyard area
located behind the garage. The privacy fence belongs to the neighbors.
Picture taken from Quentin Ave. Shows the house and garage. Porch is
located behind the shrubs.
Picture taken from standing behind the garage. Shows the open space
located behind the garage
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 13
Picture taken from standing behind the garage. Shows the open space
located behind the garage
Picture taken from standing behind the garage. Shows the open space
located behind the garage
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 14
Picture taken from standing behind the garage. Shows the open space
located behind the garage
Picture taken from standing behind the garage. Shows the open space
located behind the garage
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 15
Picture taken from standing by the shed located in the back yard. Shows
how the pole supports interfere with building area in the backyard.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 16
Picture taken from neighbor’s property looking at the back side of the
porch where the kitchen addition is proposed.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 17
Carol A. Olson
3961 Quentin Ave S, St Louis Park, MN55416
Telephone Email
December 19, 2016
Members of the Zoning Board
5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Members of the Zoning Board,
I am writing this letter to show my support of the variance request of Kim Erickson to
expand her garage on the south side. I feel that it would be an enhancement to the
neighborhood and would have no negative impact to my property. Should you have any
questions do not hesitate to contact me at 952 927-5220
Sincerely,
Carol A. Olson
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 18
From:Cameron Stromme
To:kim@parkwifi.com
Subject:house construction
Date:Wednesday, December 21, 2016 5:57:54 PM
To whom it may concern
I live at 4921 Vallacher Ave, St Louis Park, next door to Frank and Kim Erickson. I wanted to
let you know that I approve of their plans for their house remodel, including the widening of
the "porch" area of the house.
This remodel would not cause an impact to my property.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Cameron Stromme
320.293.1980
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 19
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 20
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 21
4A Variance to the side and rear yards
Location: 3951 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Kim Erickson
Case No.: 16-43-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 20.7 foot
variance to the required 25.0 foot rear yard and a 2.0 foot variance
to the required 7.4 foot side yard required for property located at
3951 Quentin Ave S.
REQUEST: The Applicant, Kim Erickson is requesting a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25
foot rear yard and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard to construct an addition to
the home and garage. The purpose of the addition is to expand the kitchen and attached garage.
LOCATION:
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 22
BACKGROUND:
Zoning: The applicant is requesting a variance from the following sections of the zoning
ordinance:
Section 36-114(f)(5)
The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exceptions and
modifications contained in subsections (f)(6) through (f)(10) and provisions regarding
subdivision shall govern the use and development of lots in the R-2 district:
Lot Area
(square
feet)
Lot
Width
(feet)
Front Yard Depth
Rear Yard
Depth (feet)
Side Yard Width
7,200 60 25 feet or the front
wall of the closest
house on the block
front, whichever is
greater. (See
additional exceptions
in Section 36-73.)
25 7 feet on one yard
and 5 feet on other
yard, except when
there is an attached
garage accessible
from the street or
when the lot abuts an
alley both may be 5
feet.
Section 36-114(f)(5) requires a 25 foot rear yard (see shaded column above). The existing rear
yard is 9.3 feet, which makes it legally non-conforming to this section of code. When a property
with a legally non-conforming rear yard requests a variance to the rear yard, the request is
considered from the full rear yard required by code, in this case 25 feet. If the variance is approved,
the building is deemed conforming.
Section 36-114(f)(7)
The width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased two inches for each
foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds 40 feet. For the purpose of subsection
(f) of this section, a wall includes any building wall within ten degrees of being parallel
to and abutting the side lot line of a lot.
Section 36-117(f)(7) requires a greater side yard when the side building wall exceeds 40 feet in
length. When applying this formula to the proposed construction plan, we see that the total
length of the existing and proposed side wall is 54.1 feet. To determine the required side yard,
we apply an additional two inches to the side yard for every one foot the side wall exceeds 40
feet in length. The side wall is 14.1 feet over the allowed 40 foot length, which results in 28
inches being added to the 5.0 foot minimum required side yard resulting in a total required
minimum side yard of 7.4 feet.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 23
Existing Conditions:
• The house was constructed in 1947.
• It is a one-story home with approximately 1,000 square feet of living area on the main floor.
• The existing garage is a one-car garage attached to the house by a porch.
• The property is relatively flat, irregularly shaped, and is a corner lot.
Proposal: There is a porch that connects the kitchen to the garage. The applicant proposes to
convert the porch into additional kitchen space. As part of the kitchen remodel, the applicant
proposes to add a small one-story addition to the back of the house that is approximately 2 feet
deep and 16 feet wide. This addition encroaches into the required side setback, and is the subject
of the side yard variance request.
The remodel and addition will increase the size of the kitchen from approximately 120 square feet
to 250 square feet. It will result in the addition of an island for a dine-in kitchen, more counter
space, and a pantry.
The applicant also proposes to add a 5 x 20 foot addition to the south end of the garage. The
purpose of the addition is to create storage space for lawn equipment and trash containers.
R-2 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON
STANDARDS
MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED/EXISTING
DIMENSION
Minimum lot size: 7,200 square feet 8,179 square feet (existing)
Minimum lot width: 60 feet 40.0 feet (existing)
Minimum front yard 25 feet 54.0 feet (existing)
Minimum side yard 7.4 feet - interior side,
9.0 feet – abutting the street.
5.4 feet (proposed)
18.8 feet (existing)
Minimum rear yard 25.0 feet 4.3 feet (proposed)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 24
ANALYSIS: As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the
following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff provided an analysis of each point below, and the
Applicant has also provided an analysis of each point in the attached letter.
1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
There is approximately 14 feet of separation between the applicant’s garage and the neighbor’s
house. The variance, if approved, would reduce the distance to approximately nine feet. By
code, there should be at least 30 feet of separation between the buildings (the 25 foot rear yard
and the neighbor’s five foot side yard). In adjacent interior side yards it would range between
10 and 14 feet in the R-2 district.
2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The intent of the rear yard requirement is to provide a minimum open space in the back yard.
The rear yard is currently 9.3 feet and is proposed to be reduced to 4.3 feet. While the rear
yard is already legally non-conforming (only 9.3 feet instead of 25 feet), there is approximately
2,500 square feet of open space behind the garage (shaded area below). This open space is the
result of the irregularly shaped lot. While the open area isn’t in the rear yard as intended by
the code, it is located behind the house which meets the intent of the code.
The request to vary from the side yard is not in harmony with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
The purpose of the additional side yard setback is to require longer building walls to be
constructed farther from the neighbor’s back yard. If approved, the requested variance would
result in no additional setback, and would encroach onto the requisite open space between
neighbors.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 25
3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to “Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing
homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car
garages and other amenities.” The term “other amenities” is further defined in the
Comprehensive Plan as “den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture”. A kitchen
addition is not specifically mentioned as part of the goal to facilitate move up housing.
While the comprehensive plan mentions a 2+ car garage, the proposed garage expansion is to
make the one-car garage more useable. The inside dimensions of the garage is 11.3 feet wide
by 10.9 feet deep. The expansion would provide more space to fit a car along with a small
amount of storage.
4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means:
a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A
variance can be requested for dimensional items only.
The single family home is a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not
created by the landowner.
The property is irregularly shaped and may play a part into why the house was originally
constructed to face the side lot line abutting the street (Quentin Ave) instead of the front
lot line (Vallacher Ave).
There may, however, be alternatives to achieve the desired remodel and storage space. For
example, the kitchen could be expanded into the area proposed to be a mudroom. The
applicant notes, however, that the proposed kitchen is small, and that the only way they
can get a dining table for the family is to build it into the design as a peninsula that will
double as additional counter space. There is nowhere else in the house to have a table. The
family currently eats at a counter located in the porch.
A storage shed could be constructed in the open space behind the house for the lawn
equipment and grill. Additionally, the existing garage could be removed, and a detached
two-car garage cold be constructed behind the house in the open space. This option,
however, could reduce the amount of private open space located behind the house, and
would place the open space behind the garage, where it has limited access and is out of
sight from the house. (See example below.) The example below, however, will increase
the cost of the project.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 26
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The applicant’s home faces the side yard abutting the street (Quentin Ave), not the front
yard which is located on Vallacher Ave. This arrangement by code, makes the rear yard
required between the side of the garage and the south property line. As viewed from the
street, however, the rear yard has the appearance of a side yard, (See photo below). The
proposed variances, if approved, would not alter the essential character of the area.
The variance request to expand the kitchen into the side yard is not visible from the street.
It does, however, encroach onto the open space of the rear yard of the adjacent property to
the east. The purpose of the additional setback required by this section of code is to keep
the building wall away from the neighbor’s back yard, thereby, preserving the open
character of the back yard.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 27
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The proposed expansions appear to be a less expensive option to meet their needs as
opposed to demolishing the existing garage and porch, then constructing a new addition
and detached garage in the back yard.
e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems.
This is not applicable to the application.
Staff believes the irregular shaped lot provides a difficulty that is not common for other
property owners. There are, however, alternatives available to the applicant that will meet
there needs. Albeit, the alternatives may be more costly and reduce the open space available
to the family.
5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water
conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
Staff finds the shape of the lot is not typical, and limits opportunity build the additional space
without compromising available private open space and access to it.
6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right.
While the proposed garage expansion does not result in a full two-car garage, which is a
substantial property right, it will make the one-car garage more useable for parking a car and
storing some lawn equipment.
The kitchen expansion will also provide more counter and storage space, and provide a dining
table for the family that currently has to utilize a counter in the porch.
As noted earlier, however, there is an option to meet the needs and provide a full two-car
garage. The option may be more expensive, however, and will impact the private open space
by reducing its size, limiting access to it, and reducing visibility to it from the house.
7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
public safety.
The addition infringes on the side yard, thereby, encroaching onto the openness of the
neighbor’s back yard. The garage expansion would be located five feet closer to the neighbor’s
house, however, there will still be approximately 10 feet between the garage and neighbor’s
house which is common for houses sharing two side yards.
8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it
necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
The purpose of the variance is to provide additional kitchen space so the family can eat in the
house as opposed to the porch, and to provide additional space for one car and lawn equipment
in the garage.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 28
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While the proposed additions are modest in size, and have minimal impact on the character of the
area, staff finds the proposed applications for a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25.0 foot rear
yard and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard do not meet all the criterion required
for granting a variance.
Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution denying the requested variances.
PREPARED BY:
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
REVIEWED BY:
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed resolution
Aerial
Letter from applicant
Survey
Existing and Proposed elevations and floor plans
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 29
BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 20.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 25.0
FOOT REAR YARD FOR A GARAGE ADDITION, AND A 2.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO
THE REQUIRED 7.4 FOOT SIDE YARD FOR A HOUSE ADDITION REQUIRED FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3951 QUENTIN AVE S.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. On November 16, 2016, Kim Erickson applied for a variance from the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a 4.3 foot rear yard instead of the required
25.0 feet for a garage expansion, and a 5.4 foot side yard instead of the required 7.4 feet
for an addition to a single family home.
2. The property is located at 3951 Quentin Avenue South and described below as follows, to
wit:
Lot 5, except the Northwesterly 107 feet thereof, and all of Lot 6, Block 6,
“Minikahda Vista, St. Louis Park, Minn.”
3. The Board of Zoning Appeals reviewed the application for variances Case No. 16-43-VAR
on December 22, 2016.
4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning
Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements of
Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning
Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings:
a. 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, and there is a
reasonable legal alternative to build additions and a garage on the property.
b. Granting of the requested side yard variance would impair light and air to the
neighboring property. It encroaches on the setback designed to protect the light and air
of the neighbor’s back yard.
c. The variance to the rear yard would result in the garage being located approximately
10 feet from the neighbor’s bedroom windows.
5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 16-43-VAR are hereby entered into
and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 30
CONCLUSION
The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested variance from the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a 4.3 foot rear yard instead of the required 25.0
feet for a garage expansion, and a 5.4 foot side yard instead of the required 7.4 feet for an addition
to a single family home located at 3951 Quentin Ave S.
Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: December 22, 2016
Effective date: January 3, 2016
___________________________
Paul Roberts, Chairperson
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 31
AERIAL PHOTO
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 32
To the Board of Zoning Appeals,
Thank you for taking this application into consideration. I hope that the following description of
our proposed project provides you with enough information and reasoning to approve our
variances.
We have lived in our Saint Louis Park home for 15 years, raised our children here, and have
chosen to stay and invest in this property to improve its future value and our quality of life. The
small garage and breezeway have been a pain-point for many years, and we are in need of
additional covered storage. We especially feel the burden during the long Minnesota winters,
when we need covered parking with additional space for a lawn mower, snow blower, garbage
cans, etc. In addition to our small garage, the current breezeway and kitchen lack in function and
design, and are beyond minor repair. This is where our need for a variance begins.
We have a uniquely shaped, corner lot, making our front/back yard set-backs atypical. We are
proposing a modest addition to the Southeast side of our 1-car garage to gain the storage and
function our current garage space is lacking. The other proposed additions will increase the size
of the breezeway area, converting it into usable space for our family. This addition, too, is
modest and respectful in size and design. If the variance is approved, this renovation will not
only add function, but improve curb-appeal and future value to this home in a wonderful
neighborhood.
Because our proposed design is well thought-out, we are confident it will not negatively affect
the health, safety, or welfare of the community in any way. By utilizing professional design and
construction services, we have taken our neighborhood into consideration, and will not be
encroaching on our adjacent neighbors. We have maintained an appropriate scale and aesthetic,
and kept within reasonable set-backs.
Thank you for your consideration.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 33
Quentin Avenue South
Vallacher
AvenueS1Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-79645300 South Hwy. No 101Web: www.advsur.comSHEET 1 OF 120100LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 5, except the Northwesterly 107 feet thereof, and all of Lot 6, Block 6, "Minikahda Vista, St.Louis Park, Minn", Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. Thescope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter.Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, ifnecessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, thatyou wish to be included on the survey have been shown.2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of theproperty.4. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are takenfrom the siding and or stucco of the building.5. While we show a proposed location for this addition, we are not as familiar with your proposedplans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of theimprovements carefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also,we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements as the local building andzoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any otherofficials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvalsbefore beginning construction or planning improvements to the property.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"භ" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.LEGEND#LICENSE NO.DATENOVEMBER 1, 2016SEPTEMBER 8, 2016NOVEMBER 1, 2016# 52716Joshua S. Rinke& ENGINEERING, INC.ADVANCE SURVEYINGCity Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d) Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 34
PAGE:C.SCALE:DATE REVISED:PROJECT:SHEET:ADDRESS:CLIENT:WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS SUPERCEDEDRAWINGS, AND 2D DRAWINGSSUPERCEDE 3D RENDERINGS11'-3" X 19'-10"
8'-0" X 3'-0"
9'-2" X 13'-6"
11'-11" X 11'-4"11'-5"2'-5 1/2"22 1/2"2'-8 1/2"4'-1"
22'-0"32"30"28 1/4"3'-6 1/2"3'-4 3/4"7'-0"
9'-2"13'-6 3/8"11'-6 1/2"KITCHEN
STAIR
PORCH
GARAGE
FRANK & KIM ERICKSON3951 QUENTIN AVEST LOUIS PARK, MN 554161KITCHEN & GARAGE EXPANSION1/4" = 1' - 0"OCT 26, 2016EXISTINGCity Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 35
PAGE:C.SCALE:DATE REVISED:PROJECT:SHEET:ADDRESS:CLIENT:WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS SUPERCEDEDRAWINGS, AND 2D DRAWINGSSUPERCEDE 3D RENDERINGS5'-0"
1 0 7 '-0 "0'-7"0'-10 7/8"9'-3 7/8"
9'-3 3/4"18'-9 5/8"5'-4 1/8"5'-4 3/8"PORCH
EXISTING GARAGE
NEW
DOOR
NEW
DOOR
NEW
DOOR
NEW
DOOR
NEW
DOOR
NEW
DOOR
SINK CUT-OUT
COOKTOP
CUT-OUT
3-PIECES 2"
BACKSPLASH
2" BACKSPLASH
--28.87--S 67°10'24" W--111.22--N 00°13'41" E--1 0 7 .0 0 --N 2 2 °5 6 '0 8 " W --49.99--N 67°10'29" E--4 9 .1 5 --N 2 2 °5 5 '4 9 " W
--133.99--S 89°08'48" EFound 1/2"Found pinch topFound 1"Found 5/8"F o u n d P in c h T o p
S e t s p ik e 1 .0 S E
o f p r o p . c o r .F o u n d 1 /2 "
1 5 .0
2.13 8 .1
26.33 8 .1 12.29 .7
3.712.120.312.03.3E x is tin g D w e llin g
Exs. DwellingQuentin Avenue SouthVallacher AvenueL o t 6L o t 5Bituminous DrivePROPOSED ADDITIONTO GARAGEPROPOSEDEXPANDED DRIVEWAY20.314.7FRANK & KIM ERICKSON3951 QUENTIN AVEST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416KITCHEN & GARAGE EXPANSION1/4" = 1' - 0"OCT 26, 20162PROPERTYSURVEY1/16" = 1' - 0"City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 36
PAGE:C.SCALE:DATE REVISED:PROJECT:SHEET:ADDRESS:CLIENT:WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS SUPERCEDEDRAWINGS, AND 2D DRAWINGSSUPERCEDE 3D RENDERINGSWine Cellar18'-7" X 11'-7"
16'-1" X 19'-10"
8'-11" X 6'-0"
8'-4" X 3'-5"
12 5/8"14"38"16"17 3/4"3'-2"17'-4"
22'-0"
4'-6"
7'-0"13'-6 1/4"11'-6 1/2"KITCHEN
GARAGE
MUD ROOM
PANTRY
SINK CUT-OUTCOOKTOPCUT-OUT 3-PIECES 2"BACKSPLASH2" BACKSPLASH
--28.87--S 67°10'24" W--111.22--N 00°13'41" E--107.00--
N 22°56'08" W--49.99--N 67°10'29" E--49.15--N 22°55'49" W
--133.99--S 89°08'48" EFound 1/2"Found pinch topFound 1"Found 5/8"Found Pinch TopSet spike 1.0 SEof prop. cor.
Found 1/2"
15.0
2.138.1
26.338.112.29.7
3.712.120.312.03.3Existing Dwelling
Exs. DwellingQuentin Avenue SouthVallacher AvenueL o t 6L o t 5Bituminous DrivePROPOSED ADDITIONTO GARAGEPROPOSEDEXPANDED DRIVEWAY20.314.7FRANK & KIM ERICKSON3951 QUENTIN AVEST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416KITCHEN & GARAGE EXPANSION31/4" = 1' - 0"OCT 26, 2016CONSTRUCTIONPLANEXTERIOR NOTES:INCLUDE CONTRAST VERTICAL STYLE SIDING ON NEW FRONT ENTRYINCLUDE NEW SHAKE STYLE SIDING ON NEW FRONT GABLESINCLUDE MAINTENANCE-FREE POSTS AT PORTICOINCLUDE CONTRASTING CORNER & TRIM BOARDS PER DESIGN AT TRANSITIONSCity Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 37
18'-7" X 11'-7"
16'-1" X 19'-10"
8'-11" X 6'-0"
8'-4" X 3'-5"
12 5/8"14"38"16"17 3/4"3'-2"32 1/2"29 1/2"38"17'-4"
22'-0"
4'-6"
7'-0"13'-6 1/4"11'-6 1/2"KITCHEN
GARAGE
MUD ROOM
PANTRY
EXTEND EXISTING ROOF PLANE ON BACK OF
HOUSE OVER NEW KITCHEN
BUILD NEW ROOF ON GARAGE WITH
FRONT AND BACK GABLE ENDS
INSTALL NEW GARAGE DOOR UNDER
NEW HEADER
CUT BACK EXISTING ASPHALT
DRIVEWAY AND PATCH/
RESURFACE WHERE NEW IS
ADDED
NEW PORTION OF
ASPHALT DRIVEWAY
INSTALL NEW WINDOW
IN NEW LOCATION
NEW LANDSCAPING
BY HOMEOWNER
EXPAND FOUNDATION AND POUR SLAB
FOR NEW PORTION OF GARAGE
MAINTAIN EXISTING GARAGE FLOOR IF
POSSIBLE (SAME AS PREVIOUS DESIGN)
INSTALL HOMEOWNER PROVIDED GLASS
DOOR WITH 2 OPERATING SIDELITES
NEW CONCRETE STOOP
FRAME NEW ROOF PLANE ON FRONT OVER NEW
MUD ROOM WITH 3' OVERHANG AT NEW STOOP
INSTALL HOMEOWNER PROVIDED DOOR
EXISTING PORCH HAS
CONCRETE STRUCTURE WITH
SLAB ON GRADE
INSTALL POST FOOTINGS AND FRAME
NEW FLOOR SYSTEM FOR BACK ADDITION;
SPRAY FOAM INSULATE.
NEW SMALL FRAMED STOOP; SIDING
SCOPE TBD
EXPAND CONCRETE
STOOP
FRAME NEW GABLE PORTICO
OVER EXISTING FRONT ENTRY
*ED ANTICIPATES ADDITIONAL REPAIRS NEEDED TO
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT; SAGGING
INSTALL NEW WINDOW IN NEW LOCATION
BASEMENT WINDOW BELOW TO BE USED
AS MECHANICAL ACCESS IF POSSIBLE
INSTALL FROST FOOTINGS WITH CRAWL
SPACE AND FRAME NEW FLOOR SYSTEM
FOR FRONT ADDITION; NEW CONCRETE
STOOP; USE BASEMENT WINDOW AS
ACCESS FOR MECHANICALS; FILL IN
REST OF WINDOW WITH BLOCK
SINK CUT-OUTCOOKTOPCUT-OUT 3-PIECES 2"BACKSPLASH2" BACKSPLASH
--28.87--S 67°10'24" W--111.22--N 00°13'41" E--107.00--
N 22°56'08" W--49.99--N 67°10'29" E--49.15--N 22°55'49" W
--133.99--S 89°08'48" EFound 1/2"Found pinch topFound 1"Found 5/8"Found Pinch TopSet spike 1.0 SEof prop. cor.
Found 1/2"
15.0
2.138.1
26.338.112.29.7
3.712.120.312.03.3Existing Dwelling
Exs. DwellingQuentin Avenue SouthVallacher AvenueL o t 6L o t 5Bituminous DrivePROPOSED ADDITIONTO GARAGEPROPOSEDEXPANDED DRIVEWAY20.314.7PAGE:C.SCALE:DATE REVISED:PROJECT:SHEET:ADDRESS:CLIENT:WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS SUPERCEDEDRAWINGS, AND 2D DRAWINGSSUPERCEDE 3D RENDERINGSLEGENDLEGEND
ORIGINAL WALL LOCATIONS
NEW EXTERIOR WALLS
NEW INTERIOR WALLS FRANK & KIM ERICKSON3951 QUENTIN AVEST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416KITCHEN & GARAGE EXPANSION41/4" = 1' - 0"OCT 26, 2016EXTERIORDEMOLITION & FRAMING PLANCity Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 38
PAGE:C.SCALE:DATE REVISED:PROJECT:SHEET:ADDRESS:CLIENT:WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS SUPERCEDEDRAWINGS, AND 2D DRAWINGSSUPERCEDE 3D RENDERINGS18'-7" X 11'-7"
16'-1" X 19'-10"
8'-11" X 6'-0"
8'-4" X 3'-5"
12 5/8"14"38"16"17 3/4"3'-2"32 1/2"29 1/2"38"17'-4"
22'-0"
4'-6"
7'-0"13'-6 1/4"11'-6 1/2"KITCHEN
GARAGE
MUD ROOM
PANTRY
EXPAND/REPLACE FRONT STOOP
FOR NEW FRONT PORTICO; TIE
INTO EXISTING SIDEWALK
BLOW INSULATION IN NEW ATTIC
OVER EXPANDED KITCHEN,
MUDROOM, PANTRY, ETC.
EXISTING PORCH HAS CONCRETE
STRUCTURE WITH SLAB ON GRADE
INSTALL POST FOOTINGS AND FRAME NEW 2x6 FLOOR
SYSTEM FOR BACK ADDITION; SPRAY FOAM INSULATE.
NEW SMALL FRAMED STOOP; SIDING SCOPE TBD
INSTALL FROST FOOTINGS WITH CRAWL
SPACE AND FRAME NEW 2x6 FLOOR
SYSTEM FOR FRONT ADDITION; NEW
CONCRETE STOOP; USE BASEMENT
WINDOW AS ACCESS FOR MECHANICALS;
FILL IN REST OF WINDOW WITH BLOCK
INSTALL 2" FLOOR SLEEPER-SYSTEM WITH
SPRAY FOAM INSULATION OVER SLAB
INSULATE NEW EXTERIOR WALLS
INSULATE WALL
BETWEEN HOUSE
AND GARAGE
SINK CUT-OUTCOOKTOPCUT-OUT 3-PIECES 2"BACKSPLASH2" BACKSPLASH
--28.87--S 67°10'24" W--111.22--N 00°13'41" E--107.00--
N 22°56'08" W--49.99--N 67°10'29" E--49.15--N 22°55'49" W
--133.99--S 89°08'48" EFound 1/2"Found pinch topFound 1"Found 5/8"Found Pinch TopSet spike 1.0 SEof prop. cor.
Found 1/2"
15.0
2.138.1
26.338.112.29.7
3.712.120.312.03.3Existing Dwelling
Exs. DwellingQuentin Avenue SouthVallacher AvenueL o t 6L o t 5Bituminous DrivePROPOSED ADDITIONTO GARAGEPROPOSEDEXPANDED DRIVEWAY20.314.7FRANK & KIM ERICKSON3951 QUENTIN AVEST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416KITCHEN & GARAGE EXPANSION1/4" = 1' - 0"OCT 26, 2016INTERIORDEMOLITION & FRAMING PLANLEGENDLEGEND
ORIGINAL WALL LOCATIONS
NEW EXTERIOR WALLS
NEW INTERIOR WALLS 5City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 39
PAGE:C.SCALE:DATE REVISED:PROJECT:SHEET:ADDRESS:CLIENT:WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS SUPERCEDEDRAWINGS, AND 2D DRAWINGSSUPERCEDE 3D RENDERINGSFRANK & KIM ERICKSON3951 QUENTIN AVEST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416KITCHEN & GARAGE EXPANSION1/4" = 1' - 0"OCT 26, 20166EXTERIORELEVATIONSSOUTHEAST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1' - 0"
NORTHEAST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1' - 0"
HOUSE ELEVATION (NOT PARALELL TO STREET)
1/4" = 1' - 0"
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 40
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2016
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on December 22, 2016
at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota –
Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Justin Kaufman, Paul Roberts
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Gainsley served as
chair.
2. Approval of Minutes of November 29, 2016
Commissioner Solmer made a motion recommending approval of the minutes of
November 29, 2016. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side and rear yards
Location: 3951 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Kim Erickson
Case No.: 16-43-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
stated that the applicant, Kim Erickson, has requested a 20.7 foot variance to the
required 25 foot rear yard and a 2.0 foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard
to construct an addition to the home and garage. The purpose of the addition is to
expand the kitchen and attached garage.
Mr. Morrison discussed existing conditions of the property. He noted that it is a
corner lot. He reviewed R-2 District standards comparison. Mr. Morrison
reviewed the remodel proposal. He presented the property survey with proposed
addition.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 41
Mr. Morrison discussed the property being a corner lot and in this case the front
of the house does not face the front yard. The front yard is along Vallacher
because it is the shorter of the two property lines. He explained by code the
Vallacher property line is the front lot line and thereby the front yard. He
indicated the property lot lines, setbacks and buildable area. He said the house
currently encroaches into the rear yard. It’s a legally non-conforming situation
which can continue to exist but cannot be expanded upon without a variance.
Mr. Morrison presented the floor plan of the existing home. He presented the
proposed remodel area. The goal of the kitchen remodel is to make it more
useable. The garage addition would remain a one car garage with more space for
lawn equipment, trash cans and snowblower.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the staff analysis of each variance criteria. Staff
recommendation is for denial. He said there are criteria staff could agree with but
staff looked at the fact that there are options available and that the side yard
variance does infringe on the open space of the neighbor’s property.
Commissioner Bloyer asked about the buildable area for the detached garage.
Mr. Morrison responded that the drawing presented was a little misleading
because detached garages work under a different set of rules. He explained those
rules.
Commissioner Bloyer asked about minimum side yard, interior side. She asked
for the current setback.
Mr. Morrison showed the side yard setbacks, adding that a wall would continue to
maintain the 5.4 setback.
Commissioner Gainsley commented that options have been given to the applicant
which would not require a variance. He said there is no hardship.
Mr. Morrison said the applicant can speak to it but staff heard from the applicant
hardship is due to irregular shaped lot. Primarily the reason the applicant chose
this design for the remodel is due to the small kitchen.
Commissioner Gainsley opened the public hearing.
Kim Erickson, applicant, said she has lived in the home 15 years. The hardship is
due to the small kitchen they are not able to eat in the kitchen. Most of the time
they eat their meals sitting on the sofa in the living room. The porch is a three
season porch and they’ve been able to eat in the porch only two months of the
year.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 42
Ms. Erickson said a standard size single car garage has about 288 sq. ft. She said
for whatever reason her garage was built 4 ft. shorter with 223 sq. ft. Once trash
cans, lawnmower, snowblower, grill, etc., are in the garage there is not room for a
car. She said she wanted to make her garage bigger without losing her backyard.
Ms. Erickson said she appreciates the city suggesting options for a two car garage
but then she wouldn’t have a backyard. She wouldn’t even be able to see the
backyard. She would lose garden and if grandchildren were to play back there
she wouldn’t even be able to see them. Ms. Erickson explained that in
bumping out the area from the porch she is trying basically to get the fridge in line
with the counters. She distributed photographs to the board. She distributed
two letters to the board in support of the variance from Carol Olson, 3961
Quentin, and Cameron Stromme, 4921 Vallacher. Ms. Erickson stated that she
wants the size of a single car garage and she is willing to scale that back so that
there would be 5 feet to appear like a side yard setback.
Commissioner Gainsley asked if Ms. Erickson designed the house.
Ms. Erickson said it was built in 1947 and she doesn’t know who the builder was.
There have been three previous owners.
Commissioner Solmer asked how many bedrooms the home has.
Ms. Erickson responded it is a 3-bedroom house. She said the bedrooms are all
on the Vallacher side of the house.
Shawn Nelson, New Spaces, contractor for the applicant, said they looked at
various design proposals to meet their needs. He believes the plan meets the
zoning intent as well as the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke about
the very irregularly shaped lot. He spoke about the side yard. He said the
applicant is willing to redesign that side of the garage to be at the 5 ft. setback
which meets the intent of zoning regulations to have a minimum of 10 ft. between
adjacent properties. He said doing the attached garage in that way does allow for
open space behind the property, which is their backyard.
Mr. Nelson said the kitchen proposal would provide the space needed to provide
seating in the kitchen. He said the refrigerator is in their living room now.
They are looking for a kitchen that would meet their basic needs. The addition
doesn’t encroach any further on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Nelson said the
minimum normally between two buildings is 10 ft. They have greater than that.
If it was considered rear yard to side yard there would be a minimum of 30 ft.
Where it is added on there is in excess of 30 ft. of open space behind that because
of how their building extends. They are meeting the intent of the zoning
regulations. It is consistent with the character of the community. He said the
proposal does not negatively impact neighbors or the neighborhood in any way.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 43
Mr. Nelson spoke about attached versus detached garage during cold weather. It
isn’t simply an economic decision. There are considerations like safety, security
and less shoveling. He said the reality with a two car garage option is that almost
the entire rear yard would be paved over increasing amount of impervious surface
on the lot. The single car garage would be beneficial as well as consistent with
the intent of the zoning code.
Commissioner Gainsley said the city and state have developed guidelines for
pervious and impervious surfaces. He asked if there is any concern about square
feet of impervious surface.
Mr. Nelson said he isn’t concerned about impervious for the plan they’ve
proposed but said he is concerned about a two car detached garage.
Commissioner Solmer asked how many cars are routinely kept at the residence.
Ms. Erickson said currently they have three cars.
Commissioner Solmer asked if there is no parking on Quentin.
Ms. Erickson responded that is correct during snow emergency. Quentin is one of
the main streets plowed regularly. She said three cars can squeeze in the drive if
they are parked right up to the garage door. Which means they can’t remove their
snowblower easily.
Commissioner Gainsley closed public hearing.
Commissioner Bloyer said the hardship is the shape of the lot. Besides the fact of
reducing visibility and reducing their own rear yard with a detached garage it
would create an incentive for small children to play in the neighbor’s back yard
rather than their own legal backyard. She asked why anyone would play behind
the garage. A storage shed on the Vallacher side wouldn’t be appreciated by the
neighbor. Commissioner Bloyer stated she thinks there is a hardship that warrants
giving a variance.
Commissioner Solmer said he could see approving the 2 ft. setback along the side
by porch for usable space because it’s next to neighbor’s backyard, not their
living space. But the 5 ft. setback proposed for the garage makes it directly
closer to the windows on the neighbor’s house and cuts off their light.
Commissioner Solmer commented that as noted by applicant, parking is an issue.
The city tries to promote two car garages. There is no way this one car garage
can be expanded into a two car garage. There is no perfect solution given the
shape of the lot. He said it is possible to put in a generous sized two car garage
without a variance. Commissioner Solmer said he could see expanding the
existing kitchen but he has trouble with the garage proposal. It’s already non-
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 44
conforming and a garage expansion would make it worse for the neighbors. He
said the present neighbor may not object but of course they won’t be there
forever.
Commissioner Gainsley said he agreed with Commissioner Solmer and parts of
Commissioner Bloyer’s reasoning. He said he is reluctant to give variances
where there are viable options which could mostly serve the applicant’s need and
meet the city’s requirements. He said he sees the need from the applicant’s point
of view but is not sure he sees it from the city’s point of view. He added that
variances aren’t really necessary when other options exist.
Commissioner Solmer said he agreed.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt a resolution denying an
application for a 20.7 foot variance to the required 25.0 foot rear yard and a 2.0
foot variance to the required 7.4 foot side yard required for property located at
3951 Quentin Ave. S. The motion passed on a vote of 2-1 (Bloyer opposed).
Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council. The 10-
day appeal period ends on January 3, 2017.
5. Unfinished Business
6. New Business
A. 2016 Annual Report
Mr. Morrison said he would add this evening’s variance case to the annual report
and email the revised version to the board.
Commissioner Bloyer noted a minor correction to be made on the 3338 Library
Lane report.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to accept the report as amended. The
motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
7. Communications
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 45
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6d)
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – Kim Erickson - 3951 Quentin Ave. S.Page 46
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to take testimony and close the public hearing. Motion to
Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing improvement project No. 4017-1700,
approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to implement our
Pavement Management program?
SUMMARY: The bridge on W.37th Street over Minnehaha Creek is scheduled to be reconstructed
in 2017. This bridge was inspected in 2011 as part of the city’s annual bridge evaluation program.
The evaluation revealed the need for replacement due to the condition of the structural
components. DNR requirements require the deck of the bridge to be raised approximately 3 feet
to accommodate recreation on the creek. The existing vehicle bridge and the existing pedestrian
bridge will be removed and replaced with a single bridge with sidewalk on both sides. Sidewalk
has also been added on the south side of W. 37th Street from Aquila Avenue to Boone Avenue.
The reconstruction of the bridge requires significant temporary right of way. Offers have been
made to the adjacent property owners for the temporary easements. The City Attorney is currently
working on a quick take through condemnation to guarantee that the City will have access to the
properties to begin construction late May. The project is expected to be completed late fall of
2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project is included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017. Funding will be provided by a combination of Federal, Utility,
Pavement Management Funds, and General Obligation Bonds.
Funding Sources
Federal Aid $2,140,914
Pavement Management Fund $1,201,003
General Obligation Bonds (sidewalk) $55,655
Sanitary Utility Fund $92,250
Total $3,489,822
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Bridge Rendering
Location Map
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6e) Page 2
Title: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The bridge on W. 37th Street over Minnehaha Creek is proposed to be
reconstructed in 2017. This bridge was inspected in 2011 and the inspection revealed the need for
replacement. A channel span bridge design is no longer recommended by MnDOT due to a history
of structural and maintenance issues. The plan is to remove the existing vehicle bridge and the
existing pedestrian bridge and replace with one new bridge that has sidewalk on both sides.
The City hired, WSB and Associates, to design this project. During preliminary design it was
determined that the bridge would need to be raised approximately 3 feet to meet the requirements
of the Department of Natural Resources. Raising the bridge requires road reconstruction between
Boone Avenue and Aquila Avenue to connect the new bridge into the existing infrastructure. This
reconstruction requires significant temporary right of way. Offers have been made to the nearby
property owners for the temporary easements. The City Attorney is currently working on a quick
take through condemnation to guarantee that the City will have access to the easements necessary
to begin construction late May.
Staff recently met with Target regarding the possible release of Boone Avenue, a private road, to
the City. Due to funding issues and the need for acquisition of right- of- way by Target on nearby
properties, Target has informed us that Boone Avenue reconstruction is 3 to 5 years away. They
are still interested in working to release Boone Avenue to the City and are aware of the
requirements.
Two open houses were held and nearby property owners and tenants were invited to discuss the
project. The main concern from the business owners was the ability to get customers to their stores.
Staff is working with them on an individual basis to ensure we can provide good access during
construction. The business owners like the addition of sidewalk on the south side of W. 37th Street
and also the aesthetics of the new bridge. A rendering of what the bridge will look like is attached
to this report.
The construction of W. 37th Street Bridge and road is estimated to cost $3,489,822. An 80%
Federal and 20% local cost share applies to most items up to the maximum funding available.
There are items such as temporary easements, design, and city utilities which do not qualify for
federal funding. This project is included in the 2017 CIP and will be paid using a combination of
Federal Funding, Sanitary Sewer, Connect the Park, and Pavement Management Funds.
Financial Consideration: This project was included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) for 2017. Below is a summary of the costs and funding sources.
Estimated Costs
Construction costs $2,516,720
Contingencies (10%) $251,672
Engineering and administration (25%) $629,180
Temporary easements $92,250
Total $3,489,822
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6e) Page 3
Title: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700
Funding Sources
Federal Aid $2,140,914
Pavement Management Fund $1,201,003
General Obligation Bonds (Sidewalk) $55,655
Sanitary Utility Fund $92,250
Total $3,489,822
Proposed Schedule:
If the City Council approves this project, the following schedule is proposed:
1. Advertise for bid Feb / March
2. Bid opening March
3. Approve construction contract April
4. Construction Late May – Oct 2017
Construction of this project is anticipated to take most of the summer. Work adjacent to the creek
cannot begin until June 15 due to the fish spawn. Staff will work with the businesses to ensure
that the customers have access at all times.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6e) Page 4
Title: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700
RESOLUTION NO. 17-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4017-1700,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Project Manager related to the W. 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-
1700;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 4017-1700 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The proposed project is hereby established and ordered.
4. The plans and specifications to construct these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official City
newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making
of said improvements under said-approved plans and 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 bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount
of the bid.
6. The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 6, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6e) Title: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700 Page 5
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6e)
Title: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700 Page 6
¥f¤
")20¬«7AQUILAAVESZINRANAVES YUKONAVES35TH ST W
36TH ST W WYOMINGAVESBOONEAVES34 1/2 ST W
XYLONAVESYUKONAVESVIRGINIAAVESDIVISION STPHILLIPS PKWY37TH ST W
A Q U I L A A V E S T O W B H W Y7
S E R V I C E D R H I G H W A Y 7KNOLLWOODMALLACCESRDBOONEAVESUTAHAVES
P R IV A T E R DPRIVATERDPRIVATERD
0 250 500 750 1,000Feet
¯
Legend
37th Street Construction Area
¥f¤37th Street Bridge Construction Area
City Limits
37th St. W. Bridge and Street Construction Area
Knollwood Mall
Target
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 6e)
Title: West 37th Street Bridge/Road Reconstruction - Project No. 4017-1700 Page 7
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: February 6, 2017
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision Steering Committee Appointment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to appoint ____________ to the Vision St. Louis Park
Steering Committee.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Who should be appointed to the available position on the Vision
Steering Committee?
SUMMARY: At the December 19, 2016 City Council Study Session, the City Council appointed
Vision Steering Committee members. One of the members had to resign because of scheduling
conflicts. The Statements of Interest of the other applicants are attached. The recommended action
is for the City Council to appoint one applicant from the attached list to fill the Steering Committee
vacancy.
The Vision Steering Committee is to serve as a liaison between the community and the City
Council throughout the Vision process. Steering Committee members are ideally “visionary,
entrepreneurial and innovative in approaching the future; able to think outside the box; and positive
about St. Louis Park’s future.” The Committee will work with the Consultant to bring the
community input together and create a Vision document and report.
The Vision Steering Committee had its first meeting in January, and will continue to meet monthly
throughout the Vision process.
NEXT STEPS: Vision activities including the first Town Hall meeting and Facilitator training
will take place in February (please see attached 1-page description of events). Additional
Facebook Live Town Hall meeting, on-line surveys and activities at community events will occur
throughout the spring.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Vision Steering Committee Description
Vision 3.0 Description
Vision Steering Committee Statements of Interest
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment
DISCUSSION
The following table shows the list of people who submitted “Statements of Interest” for the Vision
Steering Committee; those highlighted in green were appointed on December 19, 2016.
The original appointees represented a balance of people from the four Wards, two from each with
three from Ward 3; and it included 5 females and 4 males.
Ward 1 Emily Crook
Lisa Genis
Barb Martin
Frank Ross
Amaya Fokuo – Youth
Ward 2 Lynette Dumalag
Chris Hanson
Larry North
Curt Rahman (resigned)
Adebisi Wilson (withdrew)
Ward 3 Jodi Dezale
Matt Flory
Rachel Harris
Dan Salmon
Julie Sweitzer
Lindsay Thompson
Ward 4 Jim Brimeyer
Justin Grays
George Hagemann
Tracy Just*
Not in SLP Eric Hoffer
Nene Matey-Keke
Christina Woodlee
*Unable to meet on Tuesdays
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
STEERING COMMITTEE:
9 Members from the community
Represent a cross‐section of community, geographically and demographically, etc.
Recommended by the Staff Communications and Outreach Committee and approved
by the City Council
What is the role of the Steering Committee?
Serve as the City Council’s appointees and act as liaisons between the community and
the Council for the Visioning process
Help the City reach and engage all members of the community. We want all
community members to have the opportunity to participate. This is a priority of the
Vision project.
Be visionary, entrepreneurial, and/or innovative in how they approach the future. We
want people who can think outside the box, experiment, and be positive about SLP’s
future.
Work collaboratively with the consultant and City staff.
Occasionally meet with the City Council to share key insights or project milestones.
Be advocates for the visioning process in their neighborhoods, communities,
workplaces, etc.
What’s the time commitment?
The Steering Committee will meet approximately once each month from January to
June 2017.
Each meeting will be 90 minutes to two hours
What is Vision 3.0 What is Vision 3.0
St. Louis Park?St. Louis Park?
It’s a community-wide process to hear your ideas for
the future of our city.
How can How can
I participate?I participate?
You can parƟ cipate online, via social media and in-person! All
events are free and open to anyone. See the schedule below or
visit slpmn.us/zzbx for up to the minute details.
I want to…I want to…Here’s howHere’s how Date and detailsDate and details
Share ideas for the future of
St. Louis Park on Facebook,
Twi Ʃ er or Nextdoor.
• On Facebook, follow @stlouispark
and we’ll post quesƟ ons each week.
We want to hear your answers!
• On TwiƩ er use #visionSLP
• Join Nextdoor to take part
Talk to us anyƟ me! We’ll be posƟ ng
quesƟ ons and collecƟ ng feedback
through spring 2017.
Convene a group of neighbors
or friends to talk about the
future of St. Louis Park.
Join Facilitator Training to receive
training and tools to host a
conversaƟ on in your home, your place
of worship, your neighborhood center
and beyond! Register at bit.ly/2jafor3.
Childcare will be provided.
FEBRUARY 21
6-8:30 pm
Municipal Service Center
7305 Oxford St.
St. Louis Park
AƩ end a Town Hall MeeƟ ng
either via Facebook Live or
in-person to meet others and
talk about the future of St.
Louis Park.
Town Hall meeƟ ngs will take place
in-person and via Facebook Live.
Childcare will be provided at the
Feb. 22 and March 16 meeƟ ngs.
In-person town hall meeƟ ngs:
Feb. 22 and March 16
St. Louis Park City Council Chambers
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Facebook Live meeƟ ngs:
March 2 and April 13
Follow @stlouispark on Facebook
FEBRUARY 22
7-8:30 pm
City Hall Council Chambers
MARCH 2
8-8:30 pm
Facebook Live Town Hall MeeƟ ng –
aƩ end from home by following @
stlouispark on Facebook
MARCH 16
7-8:30 pm
City Hall Council Chambers
APRIL 13
8:00-8:30 pm
Facebook Live Town Hall MeeƟ ng
AƩ end a neighborhood
meeƟ ng.
AŌ er Feb. 22, more than 40 residents
will be hosƟ ng meeƟ ngs in their
homes, places of worship and beyond.
See a calendar of public events at
slpmn.us/zzbx
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 4
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee – Statements of Interest
Vision Steering Committee Applicants January18, 2017
NAME Affiliations Live
in
SLP
N’hood Gender Most important issue in SLP right now
Brimeyer Jim Former City Manager, City Council;
Charter Commission; Vision SLP
Chair ’95 and ’05; SWLRT PAC
Y Westwood
Hills
M Access to LRT and overall efficient
transportation system
Crook Emily SLP Teacher Y Sorensen F Racial equity
Dezale Jodi Aquila N’hood Board; Fare For all
Site leadership team
Y Aquila F Community engagement
Hanson Chris Business owner, Twin West Y Browndale M More active neighborhoods
Hoffer Eric Pastor Prince of Peace; Children
First, Tree House; Fore for All;
Partners for a Strong Park
N N/A M Maintaining a vibrant, cohesive community
Just Tracy City volunteer – parks Y Shelard Park F Gentrification
Martin Barb Union Church Pastor; Pathways to
Partnership
Y Sorensen F Affordable housing
Matey-Keke Nene Small business owner in Sorenson,
(real estate brokerage)
N N/A M Managing population growth and change
North Larry Exc & Grand resident and condo
board president; Beltline LRT
Station Adv Comm; Design
Guidelines South Side of Excelsior
Adv Committee
Y Wolfe Park M SWLRT – access and new development
Ross Frank Citizen Y Birchwood Sustainable ecosystem and environment
Salmon Dan Resident and Apartment building
owner; several citizen adv.
committees
Y Minnehaha M Success of SWLRT
Thompson Lindsey Aquila N’hood Leader Y Aquila F Infrastructure to meet the needs of the next
generation
Woodlee Christina Perspectives – Director of Donor
Relations
N N/A F Affordable housing
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 5
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: James Brimeyer
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
City Manager, 1980-88; City Council, 1996-2003; Board member-Community Foundation, 2002-Present;
Charter Commission, 2011-Present; Chair, Steering Committee, Vision St Louis Park, 1995;
Chair, Steering Committee, Vision St Louis _Park, 2005; Member, Policy Advisory Committee for SWLRT,
2002-2010; Member, Metropolitan Council, 2011-2015;
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Vibrant;
Creative with some risk taking;
Forward thinking
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Inclusive to a fault;
Technologically relevant;
Stronger more active neighborhoods
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Access to LRT and an efficient overall transportation system. Combine this with creative lifetime housing
options provides an acceptable quality of life for all residents.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Modern and relevant use of technology enables strong lines of connectivity throughout the community
and the involvement of all residents in the governance of government and other institutions within the
community.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Have lived here for 36 years, served as City Manager for eight years and on the City Council for eight
years.
Chaired the Steering Committee in 1995 and 2005. Responsible for suggesting the writing and
publication of the Book of Dreams in 2006.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 6
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 7
IFF St. Louis Park I.././ M I N N E S O T A
�pe.v-ie-nu. L.--lf"� in fhe, fay(<:,
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Emily Crook
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, St. Louis Park Schools employee/teacher
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Proud, Dynamic, Vibrant
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Accessible, Inclusive, Visionary
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
St. Louis Park is proud, consistently lifting up those who have roots in our community. St. Louis
Park is dynamic, its changing demographics is a testament to its history of welcoming, and lends itself to
more communities of color choosing to live in a city where the schools and citizens are accepting of new
perspectives. St. �ouis Park has more and more younger citizens moving into the community as well -
this changing community needs intentional Racial Equity work. Racial Equity is a vital conversation in the
future success of St. Louis Park. The intersectionality of race in the community is apparent, and needs to
be addressed. Historically speaking, race has had an integral part of guiding St. Louis Park's
transportation, housing, education and government affecting its community disproportionately. St. Louis
Park needs to intentionally engage in conversations around race, as it will not only benefit our
communities of color but our white community, building a safe city for all.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
In 2066, St. Louis Park will be a racially conscious community -one that makes an effort to be
more racially conscious. Its schools will provide the foundation for our future through mature racial
consciousness, which in turn, will make the city more visionary knowing that lifting the spirit of our
youngest member's key to our success. St. Louis Park will be inclusive to all who decide to live here,
where everyone will feel safe. The more St. Louis Park is aware, the better it will be at serving the needs
of all members of the community, and the more accessible it will be for each other.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I am a proud and committed St. Louis Park resident. I love living and teaching in a community
that not only looks to improve in the short-term, but has the consciousness to look forward into the
future, and think about ways it can better support citizens. I have a unique perspective in that, daily I
interact with St. Louis Park's youngest and their families. I am constantly a part of conversation which
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 8
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 9
IFF St. Louis Park III M I N N E S O TA
�pe.V'1e-t1.u. 1.-IY:e. in the. PaV'/�.
Name: Jodi Dezale
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): I am a resident, member of the Aquila
Neighborhood Association board, and active participant in a number of community services and
activities including: library use, rec center, community education, and Fare For all Site leadership team.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Diverse, supportive, aware
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Welcoming, inclusive, engaging
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Building on current activities to allow more people to be comfortable engaging should be a priority. We
are increasingly connecting and I see people reaching out through social media. A number of valuable
things are happening such as the community conversation about culturar diversity and the recent
conversations regarding mental health that NAMI set up at the library but I feel as if creating more
options and providing platforms for more people to engage in different ways should be a priority.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Over time I feel the focus will need to be on maintaining city infrastructure and services. Continuing with
move up programs to encourage people to improve older housing stock and maintaining affordable
rental options with supports for community participation and to promote stability.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less) I am a long
time St. Louis Park resident with a passion for providing lifelong education opportunities and supporting
people with disabilities. I am helping to provide support and manage resources for my elderly mother. I
support projects such as SLP seeds and feel that making fresh foods available is important to the·
community. I am well connected within my neighborhood, which positions me to get input from many
stakeholders.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X X X X X X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening X X X
6-8 p.m.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 10
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 11
IFF St. Louis Park III M I N N E S O TA
�pe.vie.nu:-f....lFis:. in -the. fay/;:.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Chris Hanson
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, Business owner to be -Summer 2017, member of Twin West Chamber, soon to be member of
a philanthropic group like rotary club.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Vibrant, Family-oriented, Home
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Connected, Community-oriented, Safe
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
There are several business sectors that are in need of face lifts and the different neighborhoods vary
greatly across the city. I think the most important issues are ensuring the more active neighborhoods
become the model for the city and not the other way around.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
Transportation, liveability and accessibility especially considering the public transit. Traffic is currently
an issue in several the nodes throughout the city-partly due to construction. Ensuring the light rail and
many of the construction projects boost the cities desirability is a must for the future of life in the park.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
My experience community organizing in Northeast Minneapolis will allow me to understand what it
takes to connect a community utilizing social platforms. Public participation is difficulty if the means
aren't easily established for community members. My training in toastmasters and group organization
will help to keep the meetings fruitful and effective.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 12
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 13
Sto Louis Park
M 1 N NE so TA Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
6-xpcxiG-nl-<=- 1.-w� ,n the- Pav1c, Statement of Interest
�). l \ N tv"S,mv ,, 1 ame: \
i
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization!
faith community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
[) t (.: p''I+·\ \) u/\: \Jv4.¥'\ l. .) ' ! ·· C VT (,L.:r ( List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently. �
-
I
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
J
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or leSS) ,�C\.t�i ,jf"\:,v.J?' /"ct.. \
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words orless) ("'--·�t � ' 1 .-'\ �t'\/\ e.,, +;__ lcL
Mornings 7·9 a.m.
Lunchtime 11 a.m.-1 p.m.
\}6
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
-·-·-······················"·-·····---1-----+-------�---1--------+------------·-----------------l--------�»----4
Evening
6-8 p.m.
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited
you to apply. We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering Committee. Thank you!
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 14
lfF St. Louis Park I.I../ M I N N E S O T A
�pe.v,uiu. l,..f'Fe. it1 the. �Yk.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Tracy Just
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
I'm a resident and I do volunteer work for the city.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently. vibrant, active, growing
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026. vibrant, active, growing
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Beginnings of gentrification -while it's great that our city is growing so fast, there are some early
negative impacts that concern me. New large homes that are intruding on smaller ones, trees removed
for new apartments, etc.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The progression of gentrification -rents and real estate are already on the rise, will people be forced to
move? Continued destruction of nature and home owners negatively impacted by new construction of
big homes.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I'm a fairly typical resident of the neighborhood. I've been in the digital marketing profession for many
years, so that may come in handy. I spend a lot of time outdoors and in the city's parks. I'm really not a
big "idea" person or a leader, but I'm a pretty good organizer and researcher, and I care about this city
and its future!
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 15
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 16
IIF St. Louis Park I.I.I M I N N E S O TA
�pt:-vit:-11u. l-t'f"is:. i11 tht:- Pav/::,
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Barbara Martin
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, constituent, pastor of Union Congregational United Church of Christ, active member of
Pathways to Partnership (clergy action group)
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Broadminded, diverse, vibrant
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in·2026.
Green, multi-cultural, inclusive
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
SLP is growing and expanding which brings increased cost for housing and cost of living. In order to be a
more inclusive and healthy community we must address the overwhelming need of affordable housing -
it's a community asset. Our community is stronger when the city includes households from a wide-range
of income levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds, faith traditions, and sexual orientations. I don't want to
live or participate in a homogenous city that values money over people.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
Climate change affects everyone. SLP could make a renewable energy plan to dramatically reduce our
carbon footprint, and to make renewable energy affordable. Rochester. MN made the commitment to
be 100% electricity renewable by 2031. Why couldn't SLP set the standard for the Twin Cities?
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
I would bring a social justice perspective through the lens of the Protestant progressive faith
community. I am passionate about equality and equity, sustainable living with renewable resources,
challenging the status quo where power gets centralized, and promoting opportunities to be our best
and whole selves. I am not a proselytizer, but instead put feet on my faith.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings X
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X X X
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 17
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 18
lfF St. Louis Park IIJ M 1 N N E s o r A
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Nene Matey-Keke
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Small business owner (real estate
brokerage)
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
1 . Community
2.Recreation
3.Excellence
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
1 . Progressive
2.Inclusive
3.Influential
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
I believe the most pressing issue in St. Louis Park is figuring out how to effectively manage
population growth and changes, which include everything from an aging population to affordable
housing.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
In 2026, I believe St. Louis Park will be facing the issue of density, which can be affected by cultural
shifts and will affect the proximity of neighbors and living space.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
As a real estate broker and having a past career in nonprofit real estate development, I have a
unique perspective to understand the challenges cities face in their management of citizens and
residents. Since my company covers both residential and commercial real estate, I can speak from
both sides of the table when it comes to what consumers want/need and what cities can reasonably
provide.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
20 6 20 I h k II d / . Id b ·1 bl 1 -May 17.P ease c ec a ays times you wou e ava1 a
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Mornings
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime X X X X
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening
6-8 p.m.
e to meet:
Friday Saturday Sunday
X X X
X
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 19
IIF St. Louis Park II../ M I N N E S O TA
�pc-vie:-t1u- L..-lf"� it1 the-f.ivf;:.
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name:
Larry North
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
•Resident
•Recent condo board president
•Served on the Beltline Station Area Advisory Committee
•Served on the Design Guidelines for the South Side of Excelsior Boulevard Advisory Committee
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
•built-out
•aging population
•automobile-dependent
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
•good public and private transit
•walkable neighborhoods
•diverse -population, housing, employment
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
I believe that it is important to make beneficial use of the three Southwest LRT stations that will be here
five years from now. There should be convenient access to the stations from throughout St. Louis Park.
High-density residential and commercial development should be encouraged in the station areas;
maybe even some nearby light industrial development, too.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? {100 words or less)
It's hard to know, but I'll say it'll be maintaining a diverse population. In particular, St. Louis Park must
not become overloaded with elderly baby boomers (I'll be one by then). It must be attractive to young
people and young families.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? {100 words or less)
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 20
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 21
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Frank Ross
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): resident
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Convenient, disconnected, and congested
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Vibrant, responsible, and inspiring
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Given the unique connection the city shares witll its neighbors, the arteries of transportation that
convene within its borders and its historical relationship with Minneapolis, maintaining a balanced and
sustainable ecosystem and environment consistent with the cultivation of a healthy citizenry is of
paramount importance at this time. The decisions our community makes now with respect to water
resource management will shape our future and substantively influence the arc of prosperity for future
generations of Saint Louis Park residents and businesses.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 20267 (100 words or less)
A focus on the city's infrastructure will likely be the most prominent area of concern in the future. With
housing density continuing to expand commensurate with an ever increasing population, the capacity of
the and the integrity of the city's public works will need to be evaluated and addressed.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Having volunteered in various different capacities, helping people across a multitude of socioeconomic,
ethnic, and age demographics, I have experience connecting with ana having empathy for the needs of
people across all spectrums of society. Additionally, I believe that I would bring a unique view to the
committee given my experience in risk management, specifically my focus on identifying vulnerabilities
in systems. Finally, I am excited about the potential to influence the vision for the future development of
our community and the opportunity to bring insight inconsistent with the status quo.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 22
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 23
lfF St. Louis Park I.I.I M I N N E S O TA
fi1pc-v1c-nu:.- L..-ff"� in thc- Park
Name: Dan Salmon
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
My wife, 3 children and I have lived in SLP for 14 years. All three of our children were born at Methodist
Hospital and currently attend the St. Louis Park Public Schools. They play on many city and school
sponsored sports teams. As entrepreneurs, we own and manage a multifamily apartment building
located on the east side of St. Louis Park. My wife and I are both active volunteers in the schools and
with our kids' sports associations. I have also participated in several community events and Citizen
Advisory Committee roles. We love St. Louis Park and have made long term commitments with our
home and business decisions. Our plan is to be here and participate in the city for many years to come.
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Progressive, growing and family friendly
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Transportation friendly, top destination and diverse
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? {100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park right now is the success of SWLRT. This project has been in
the making for many years and will bring and provide many benefits to the city. It not only solidifies St.
Louis Park as a critical 1st ring suburb but will also bring many people to and through the city for
shopping and visiting our great restaurants. The SWLRT will provide easy access to great living
accommodations and facilitate traveling to many parts of the Metro without the need for driving.
Alternative transportation modes are what we need.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
The most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026 will be balancing density with di versity, traffic and
accessibility. As the older properties continue to age and turn over to new buildings, traffic control and
ensuring the ability to still get around the city will be paramount. Traffic has continued to worsen over
the last couple of years. Diversity in what the City Council approves to be built will also be important as
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 24
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Vision Steering Committee AppointmentPage 25
IFf St. Louis Park I.I../ M I N N E S O TA
�pe.vie.nu-l,...lf"e: rn the- Pavk..
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Lindsey Thompson
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.):
Resident, Neighborhood Leader
List three words you'd use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
Location, engaged, community
List three words you'd like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
Community, engaged, sustainable
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Adapting infrastructure to fit the needs of the community.
Determining what attracts the next generation of residents to ensure St. Louis Park stays a vital
and safe community.
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Accessibility of the community, businesses, and resources.
Safety: even more emphasis than now -safe schools, safe neighborhoods, safe roads.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
Young(ish} professional with focus on establishing a plan for an exciting, sustainable, diverse,
and friendly community.
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings
7-9 a.m.
Lunchtime
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
Evening X X
6-8 p.m.
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited you to apply.
We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering
Committee. Thank you!
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 26
Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee
Statement of Interest
Name: Christina Woodlee, Director of Donor Relations @ Perspectives, Inc.
Please list all of your connections to St. Louis Park (resident, business owner, organization/faith
community member, employee of St. Louis Park business, etc.): Director of Donor Relations @
Perspectives, Inc., a non-profit in St. Louis Park.
List three words you’d use to describe St. Louis Park currently.
- Stagnant
- Quirky
- Growing
List three words you’d like to be able to use to describe St. Louis Park in 2026.
- Alive
- Modern
- Diverse
What do you think is the most important issue in St. Louis Park right now? (100 words or less)
Affordable Housing. As a first ring suburb, it’s disappointing to see the exponential, yet balanced growth
of luxury and affordable housing taking place in surrounding communities while slower growth occurs in
St. Louis Park. Changes at Meadowbrook generated awareness and have started a new dialogue in this
space, which is a start, but there’s a long way to go to see actual changes occur. Limited housing
options, no doubt will impact economic development and with the LRT coming soon – so many
possibilities!
What do you think will be the most important issue in St. Louis Park in 2026? (100 words or less)
Education. The LRT will no doubt spur economic and residential development, likely increasing the
diversity and overall number of families and students. Without intentional conversations and planning
to accommodate demographic changes, educational gaps will only continue to grow amongst white and
non-white students.
What perspective would you bring to the Vision Steering Committee? (100 words or less)
St. Louis Park has an incredible opportunity before them – to embrace and reflect the changing
demographics in an inclusive way while at the same time preserving the historic charm and character
that is St. Louis Park. Perspectives’ families arrive in St. Louis Park, where they live 2-3 years; their
children attend the schools and it becomes home. However, once they complete our program, with
limited options for affordable housing, many of these families leave St. Louis Park. If selected for the
Steering Committee, I would bring a unique lens – representing the 65 families & 163 children we serve
annually, the majority of which are non-white and living at or below the poverty level. Sharing their
experiences arriving to the City - likes, dislikes, - and their experiences that cause them to ultimately
leave St. Louis Park.
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 27
Steering committee members must commit to attending a monthly two-hour meeting from December
2016-May 2017. Please check all days/times you would be available to meet:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
Mornings
7-9 a.m.
x x x x x x
Lunchtime
11 a.m.-1 p.m.
x x x x x x
Evening
6-8 p.m.
x x x x x x
Please return your application by November 1, 2016 to the city staff person who invited you to apply.
We will notify you by the end of November 2016 if you are selected to serve on the Vision Steering
Committee. Thank you!
City Council Meeting of February 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Vision Steering Committee Appointment Page 28