Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/04/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA APRIL 20, 2015 (Mayor Jacobs Out) 6:45 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Item 1. 30 min. Use of $250,000 Westwood Hills Nature Center Donation & Master Plan 7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 6, 2015 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports -- None 6. Old Business – None 7. New Business 7a. Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC (The Excelsior Group) Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC. 7b. Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC. 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. Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Rec Center Public Service Worker John Monte and Engineering Technician Al Oliveira 2b. Recognition of the ACT on Alzheimer’s – St. Louis Park Task Force 2c. Accept Monetary Donation from the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park for the Summer Concert Series ($1,000) Meeting of April 20, 2015 City Council Agenda 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. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Meeting March 9, 2015 3b. City Council Meeting March 16, 2015 3c. Special Study Session Meeting March 16, 2015 3d. Study Session Meeting March 23, 2015 3e. Special Study Session Meeting April 6, 2015 3f. City Council Study Session Meeting April 6, 2015 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. Thien’s, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor – Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Recommended Actions: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to deny application from Thien’s, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor, for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License located at 6316 Minnetonka Boulevard 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items -- None 9. Communications -- None Immediately following City Council Meeting SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Continued – Council Chambers Discussion Item 2. 45 min. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion Meeting of April 20, 2015 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolutions to recognize Public Service Worker John Monte for his 39 years of service and Engineering Technician Alan Oliveira for his 25 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. 4b. • Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating a public sewer easement and sewer construction easements, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. • Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating a portion of the Utica Avenue South right-of-way, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4c. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park in the amount of $1,000 for the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series. 4d. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Parktacular Inc. for their Annual Parktacular Celebration Block Party to be held June 19, 2015, at the Town Green located at Excelsior and Grand, 3815 Grand Way in St Louis Park. 4e. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Heilicher Minneapolis Jewish Day School for an event to be held on May 12, 2015, at the Sabes Jewish Community Center, 4330 Cedar Lake Road in St. Louis Park. 4f. Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC. 4g. Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC. 4h. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2015 4i. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 2015 4j Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2015 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. Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Use of $250,000 Westwood Hills Nature Center Donation & Master Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the use of the $250,000 donation to Westwood Hills Nature Center and Master Plan. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council agree with staff recommendations on how to spend the $250,000 or have recommendations on how to spend the money that was donated to the Nature Center? Is the City Council in agreement with starting a Master Plan process for Westwood Hills Nature Center? SUMMARY: On November 17, 2014 City Council accepted a donation from Kathleen Hugget who graciously donated one sixth of the remainder of her Trust to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The one sixth interest amounts to $245,331.67 as of September 18, 2014 plus accrued interest from that date. As stated in the trust, this donation is given with the restriction that it be used for the care and maintenance of Westwood Hills Nature Center. This donation could be for items such as, but not limited to, enhancing the live animal/raptor outreach program, installing a water garden below overlook deck, installing a history exhibit with interpretive panels and/or investing in a new interpretive center by naming a classroom after the donator. Also, a master plan of Westwood Hills Nature Center is to be conducted this year as stated in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). There is $50,000 budgeted in the CIP to conduct the master plan. The interpretive center is in need of repair and it is imperative that a master plan be conducted. The master plan will include topics such as a facility study and program evaluation including, but not limited to, schematic design and location of the interpretive center, assessment of classrooms with educational components, parking lot needs, etc. along with current and future program assessment needs. The master plan process will definitely involve stakeholder input through a public process. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The $250,000 donation will be used for the care and maintenance at Westwood Hills Nature Center. The master plan is placed in the Capital Improvement Plan for $50,000. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Jason West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APRIL 6, 2015 1. Call to Order President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes March 2, 2015 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda The minutes were approved as presented. 5. Reports 5a. EDA Vendor Claims It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to approve the Vendor Claims. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business - None 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC. This action requires a similar approval by the City Council and is listed on the April 20th Consent Calendar. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC is in the best interest of the City and its residents? SUMMARY: In December 2014, the EDA and City approved the Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, the City, Duke Realty LP, and Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). At that time, the parties agreed that CPW would acquire the undeveloped 14 acres of The West End redevelopment property (the “Property”), and that up to six additional phases of construction would replace the phases agreed to in the original Contract. Central Park West Phases I and II are to consist of multifamily housing, Phase III will be a hotel, and Phases IV and V will be Class A office buildings. CPW has informed Staff that the conveyance of the Property is scheduled for late April 2015. At that time, Duke will convey the Property to CPW. CPW will then simultaneously convey the Phase III (hotel) property to Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC (“Regalia”) and will execute an Assignment and Assumption of Contract (“Assignment”) with Regalia. The Majority Member of Regalia is Ruslan Krivoruchko who is the owner of DLC Residential (the entity behind Central Park West). Under the Assignment, Regalia will assume all of the obligations of CPW related to the Phase III property and construction of the hotel. Because Regalia and CPW are technically unrelated entities, the Contract requires that the EDA and City consent to this Assignment.The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Assignment and Assumption and recommends the EDA and City approve and consent to these documents. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Regalia Suites assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Central Park West, LLC under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to the Phase III (hotel) property. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director, and Deputy City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC AND REGALIA SUITES OF MINNEAPOLIS, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District, which has been assigned in part to Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). 1.03. CPW proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract (the “Subject Property”) to Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to construct the hotel phase of development on the Subject Property defined in the Contract as Central Park West Phase III. In connection with such conveyance, CPW seeks to assign certain obligations of CPW related to the Subject Property to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between CPW and Assignee (the “Assignment”). 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the Authority’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent of the Authority related thereto, as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Consent attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 20, 2015 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the ____ day of April, 2015, is made and entered into by and between Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignor”), and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Duke”), the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) entered into that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 recorded August 20, 2010, as Document No. 4781478 (the “Contract”), and that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 21, 2011, recorded December 28, 2011, as Document No. 4913709 (the “First Amendment”); and WHEREAS, contemporaneously herewith, Duke, Assignor, the City and the Authority entered into that certain Second Amendment to the Contract dated ____, 20__ recorded ______, 2015, as Document No. _____________(the “Second Amendment” and, together with the Contract and the First Amendment, the “Redevelopment Contract”), and in connection with the execution of the Second Amendment, Duke assigned certain obligations under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract dated ______________, 2015 (the “First Assignment”); WHEREAS, the Second Amendment and the First Assignment are made and entered into to fulfill certain obligations of Duke and DLC Residential, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, wholly owned by Ruslan Krivoruchko (“DLC”), under that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 20, 2013, for certain real property described in the Contract, and to be platted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, and Outlot A, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 (the “Land”); WHEREAS, DLC is contemporaneously herewith assigning its interest to purchase the Land to Assignor; WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying that portion of the Land legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 (the “Subject Property”) to Assignee; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property consists of a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract and a portion of the real property defined as the Golden Valley Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract with regard to the Subject Property prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, (collectively, the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is in good standing, and has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Sections 3.1(c) and 3.2, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (c) Section 3.3 to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (d) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), all to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (e) Article IV, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property (f) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to the Subject Property; Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis (g) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (h) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to the Subject Property; (i) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of the Subject Property as contemplated in Section 8.2(b), (c) and (d); (j) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and (k) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 455-0336 Telecopy: (305) 816-6331 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A.. Attn: David L. Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ASSIGNOR: CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By Central Park West Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Sole Member By Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, its Managing Member By:_________________________ Ruslan Krivorchko Its: Managing Member STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF )) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2015, by Ruslan Krivorchko, the Managing Member of Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Managing Member of Central Park West Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Sole Member of Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ASSIGNEE: REGALIA SUITES OF MINNEAPOLIS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: __________________________ Ruslan Krivoruchko Its: Managing Member STATE OF ________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by ______________________________ of Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI) US Bank Plaza, Suite 470 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis CONSENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”) , and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; and (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption (iv) if the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 455-0336 Telecopy: (305) 816-6331 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A.. Attn: David L. Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of April, 2015. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2014, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 12 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 7b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC (The Excelsior Group) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt the Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC . This action requires a similar approval by the City Council and is listed on the April 20th Consent Calendar. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC (The Excelsior Group) is in the best interest of the City and its residents? SUMMARY: In December 2014, the EDA and City approved the Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) between the EDA, the City, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). At that time, the parties agreed that CPW would acquire the undeveloped 14 acres of The West End redevelopment property (the “Property”), and that up to six additional phases of construction would replace the phases agreed to in the original Contract. Central Park West Phases I and II are to consist of multifamily housing, Phase III will be a hotel, and Phases IV and V will be Class A office buildings. CPW has informed Staff that the conveyance of the Property is scheduled for late April 2015. At that time, Duke will convey the Property to CPW. CPW will then simultaneously convey the Phases IV and V Property to The Excelsior Group (developers of West End Flats and recent purchasers of The Parkdales office complex) under the name OP4 SLP, LLC (“OP4”). The parties will also execute an Assignment under which OP4 will ultimately assume all of the obligations of CPW related to the Phases IV and V Property and construction of the office buildings. Because CPW and OP4 are unrelated entities, the EDA and City must consent to both of this Assignment. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Assignment and Assumption and recommends the EDA and City approve and consent to these documents. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, OP4 SLP, LLC assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Central Park West, LLC under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to Phases IV and V (the office property) of Central Park West. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director, and Deputy City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC AND OP4 SLP, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District, which has been assigned in part to Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). 1.03. CPW proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract (the “Subject Property”) to OP4 SLP, LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to construct the office phases of development, defined in the Contract as Central Park West Phase IV and Central Park West Phase V, on the Subject Property. In connection with such conveyance, CPW seeks to assign certain obligations of CPW related to the Subject Property to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between CPW and Assignee (the “Assignment”). 1.04. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the Authority’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent of the Authority related thereto, as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Consent attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority April 20, 2015 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the ___ day of April, 2015, is made and entered into by and between Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignor”), and OP4 SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee certain of Assignor’s obligations under that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010, recorded August 20, 2010, as Document No. 4781478 (the “Contract”), and that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 21, 2011, recorded December 28, 2011, as Document No. 4913709 (the “First Amendment”) and that certain Second Amendment to Amended Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated December 15, 2014, recorded ___________________, 2015, as Document No. ______________ (the “Second Amendment” and together with the Contract, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, the “Redevelopment Contract”) by and among Assignor, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying certain real property, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Subject Property”), to Assignee pursuant to that certain Purchase Agreement dated March 25, 2015, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Assignor and Assignee; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property consists of a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract and the real property defined as the Golden Valley Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract with regard to the Subject Property prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date (collectively, the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is in good standing, and has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Section 3.2, only if such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (c) Section 3.3, only if such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (d) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), only to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC (e) Article IV, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property (f) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to the Subject Property; (g) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (h) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to the Subject Property; (i) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of the Subject Property as contemplated in Section 8.2(b), (c) and (d); (j) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and (k) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations from and after the Transfer Date. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: OP4 SLP, LLC c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Joe Boone With copy to: Stinson Leonard Street LLP 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Gina Fox and Andy Lee or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Central Park West Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Sole Member By: Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, its Managing Member By:_________________________ Ruslan Krivorchko, its Mamaging Member STATE OF ______________) ) ss. COUNTY OF____________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2015, by Ruslan Krivorchko, the Managing Member of Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Managing Member of Central Park West Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Sole Member of Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC ASSIGNEE: OP4 SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: ____________________________ Printed: ___________________ Title: _____________________ STATE OF ________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2015, by ______________________________, the __________________________ of OP4 SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI) US Bank Plaza, Suite 470 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC Exhibit A SUBJECT PROPERTY Outlot A, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC CONSENT, ESTOPPEL AND AGREEMENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”), and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption; (iv) warrant, represent and certify to the Assignee as follows: (A) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (B) There is no Event of Default in existence, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. City and the Authority further covenant and agree to and for the benefit of the Assignee as follows: (C) City and the Authority will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption) unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. City and the Authority will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee, unless such termination does not affect the rights and interests of the Assignee. (D) If an Event of Default (as defined in the Redevelopment Contract) occurs, and such Event of Default does not relate to the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), City and the Authority may not and will not exercise their rights and remedies under the Redevelopment Contract arising or existing by reason of such Event of Default with respect to the Assignee or the Subject Property. (E) If the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 12 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC OP4 SLP, LLC c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Joe Boone With copy to: Stinson Leonard Street LLP 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Gina Fox and Andy Lee or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 13 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent, Estoppel and Agreement to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of April, 2015. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 14 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Presentation: 2a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Rec Center Public Service Worker John Monte and Engineering Technician Al Oliveira RECOMMENDED ACTION: Read resolutions for both retiring employees. Present plaque to Al Oliveira for 25 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City Council. Public Service Worker John Monte has chosen to not attend the meeting in person. Engineering Technician Al Oliveira (pronounced olive-EAR-uh) will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The Mayor is asked to read both resolutions for the camera and present Al with a plaque in recognition of his years of service to the City. John’s plaque will be presented to him separately. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolutions Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 2 Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for P John Monte and Al Oliveira RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO PUBLIC SERVICE WORKER JOHN MONTE WHEREAS, John Monte began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park nearly 39 years ago on July 26, 1976; and WHEREAS, John has spent his entire career with the City of St. Louis Park at the Rec Center; and WHEREAS, John has performed over 40,000 ice resurfaces and maintained over 13 million gallons of outdoor pool water; and WHEREAS, John has maintained the Rec Center through numerous remodels, renovations, repairs and expansions; and WHEREAS, John has assured over his career that the hundreds of thousands of skaters, swimmers and facility users of the Rec Center are receiving the highest quality of service; and WHEREAS, John will enjoy his next chapter in life enjoying the comfort of his lake home in Ely with his wife MaryBeth, where the walleyes are always biting and the raspberries are always ripe; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Service Worker John Monte for his great contributions and nearly 39 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 3 Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for P John Monte and Al Oliveira RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN ALAN OLIVEIRA WHEREAS, Al Oliveira began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park 25 years ago on April 9, 1990; and WHEREAS, Al has been an asset to the City of St. Louis Park for his commitment and dedication to the Engineering Department as an engineering technician, inspector, project manager and overall public servant. He has served as an consistent and reliable steward of the public’s resources and trust; and WHEREAS, Al has been instrumental in the City’s 11 year history of the Pavement Management Program paving over 35 miles of city streets and installing miles of new underground utilities providing residents quality roads and public utilities; and WHEREAS, Al has been the face of the City during complex summer long neighborhood road reconstruction projects. He has shown outstanding customer service and communication to the residents during these major projects while providing a steady hand working collaboratively with the contractors; and WHEREAS, Al has been a mentor to younger staff ensuring the City’s high quality of public infrastructure is maintained for many years to come; and WHEREAS, Al looks forward to retirement when he will have time to pursue his passion of pheasant hunting alongside his friends and behind his best hunting buddy, his yellow lab named Gus; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Engineering Technician Al Oliveira for his great contributions and 25 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Presentation: 2b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Recognition of the ACT on Alzheimer’s – St. Louis Park Task Force RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to give thanks and recognize the ACT on Alzheimer’s – St. Louis Park task force for its volunteer efforts in service to the City. Members of the Task Force will be in attendance (6-12 individuals are expected), and will provide a brief presentation to summarize their work. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Since 2012 a team of volunteers has worked to develop and implement an action plan designed to raise awareness and understanding of Alzheimer’s Disease, and of the resources that are available to support individuals and caregivers in our community who are living and coping with the disease. In its first stage of work, the group tested and suggested changes to a tool designed to assess a community’s “dementia friendliness”. More recently their work has involved the distribution of resource books throughout St. Louis Park, participation in the development of a “Dementia Friends” educational program, planning public events including a free screening of the movie, “Still Alice,” and a lecture event to be held April 27 at the St. Louis Park Library, supporting nursing homes and assisted living establishments in St. Louis Park to obtain free training for their staff, and development of a resource tool for caregivers. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Presentation: 2c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Presentation Accepting Monetary Donation from the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park for the Summer Concert Series ($1,000) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Supervisor, will be present to accept a donation in the amount of $1,000. Paul Bierhaus, a member of the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park, will be in attendance to present the check for the summer concert series. The donation will be officially accepted by the City Council as a consent item following the presentation. 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. The Rotary Club of St. Louis Park is graciously donating an amount of $1,000. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used toward the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series. FINANCIAL OR BUDGETCCONSIDERATION: The Rotary Club of St. Louis Park accepted donations at the 4th annual Bundled Up event held on January 31, 2015. The donations received are provided to support the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series. The Concert Series is budgeted in the Organized Recreation budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Jason West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 9, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), Assistant Fire Chief (Mr. Coppa), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Emergency Preparedness Response Group (Mr. Ross), Park Nicollet Director of Nursing and Population Health at Park Nicollet (Ms. Bauermeister), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 16 and March 23, 2015 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for March 16th and the proposed study session agenda for March 23rd. 2. Update on City of St. Louis Park Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Mr. Harmening provided background information on the process undertaken by Mr. Koering to update the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Mr. Koering introduced Lance Ross from Emergency Preparedness Response Group, who he worked with to thoroughly update the EOP. He presented the staff report and reviewed the intent and purpose of the EOP as well as the types of incidents that would trigger the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Mr. Ross stated when an incident occurred, the EOC could be partially or fully activated depending on the type of incident. He referenced Emergency Support Function (ESF) 14, and explained that was where information could be found identifying the ESF Coordinator, primary agencies, support agencies, and State resources. Mr. Koering stated the previous EOP provided specific contact information, which would become outdated. He explained the streamlined format provided the ability to keep the plan current while still providing the necessary information. Mr. Ross reviewed the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and City Council should an incident occur. Councilmember Sanger stated during an incident it was important that the Council be provided with a flow of information that could be passed on to residents with questions. She also questioned if there was an aspect of the EOP that addressed the prevention of mass panic. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Study Session Minutes of March 9, 2015 Mr. Ross agreed it would be important for the Council to be provided with correct and current information, and noted the issue was specifically addressed by the EOP. He advised there were additional aspects of the EOP that identified the correct support systems to provide the correct message that would prevent or address panic. He provided examples of alternate communication methods in the event electronic communication was not possible. Mr. Koering stated updating the EOP also provided an opportunity to reinforce the importance of preparation throughout the City. Mayor Jacobs stressed the ability to provide a consistent message to people when incidents occur. Mr. Koering reviewed the next steps, including finalization of the ESFs, ensuring that the reference documents were completed, and correction, training, and implementation of the annual maintenance program. He noted that the EOP would come back before the Council for review and adoption once finalized. Mr. Harmening stated that the primary EOC would be the Police Station and should that location not be available, Fire Station 1 would become the EOC. Councilmember Brausen asked for additional information on the emergency siren system. Mr. Koering provided additional information on the siren system, including maintenance and monitoring of the system. Councilmember Sanger questioned if there was a policy in place regarding workplace violence and how that would be addressed. Mr. Koering stated that topic was not specifically included in the EOP but advised that there were processes in place through the Police Department. He explained if the incident were to escalate to an emergency, the Police Department would become the lead for the EOP. 3. Update on Post Discharge Pilot Program with Park Nicollet Healthcare/Methodist Hospital Mr. Koering introduced Linda Bauermeister and presented the staff report. He explained the purpose of the program was to provide brand recognition of the City and its Fire Department, better use and access to the right resources, improved outcomes which impact the overall cost of healthcare, and the supported the vision of a connected and engaged community. He reviewed the process thus far which began on January 6, 2014 with the Fire Department discussing a possible partnership with Park Nicollet. Ms. Bauermeister reviewed the current state for patient discharge flow, beginning with the patient being serviced at the hospital and ending with a follow-up call from Park Nicollet that occurred 24-72 hours following discharge. Mr. Koering reviewed the timeline of the pilot program that began in May 12, 2014. He stated there were now five fully engaged fire departments included in the pilot program. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Study Session Minutes of March 9, 2015 Ms. Bauermeister briefly presented the Park Nicollet Population Health/Care Coordination 2015 Plan and Goals. She also identified challenges found when transitioning from the current state to the future state. Mr. Koering played a video presentation that provided residents with information on the firefighter visit and the pilot program. Councilmember Spano referenced the point brought up in the video, which stated if there was not sufficient food in the home the resident could be directed to the food shelf. He stated that the person may not be able to go to the food shelf and asked for additional information. Mr. Koering stated that information could be left for the family that would provide the necessary contact information. Ms. Bauermeister advised there was funding available that would allow the food shelf to deliver food if necessary. Mr. Coppa explained the process followed during a visit and advised that the firefighter could make the necessary contact for social services. Mr. Koering provided visit data for the pilot program. Ms. Bauermeister reviewed more detailed information regarding patient engagement during the pilot program and the number of completed visits. She advised that the promotional video would be displayed on the hospital’s patient education channel, which was not done during the pilot program. She also provided the average response from patient feedback through the pilot program. Councilmember Sanger stated that she understood the benefit of the program to Park Nicollet but questioned the impact it had on staff time and response times should other emergency situations arise during a home visit. She also questioned if the program had reduced the number of unnecessary 911 calls. Mr. Koering stated that the home visits allowed additional information to be discussed that was not discussed during a 911 call. He stated there had not been additional staff hired or overtime incurred because of the program. He stated that they used smaller vehicles for these calls and were controlling the number of staff attending visits, both factors that were not able to be controlled during a 911 call. He noted this process also improved the communication and relationship with the patient and provided the patient with a clear outline of what to do and who to call. He stated the program generated an amazing amount of energy statewide as well as nationally. He stated that Fairview and Regions were also beginning pilot partnership programs built off this model and the program was being highlighted nationally, noting that he would speak on the topic at a conference in March. Councilmember Brausen stated he was very supportive of the program and believed the only actual cost incurred was for fuel. He believed there would be cost savings realized as the program continued and the number of 911 responses needed decreased. 4. 2015 Connect the Park! City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: Study Session Minutes of March 9, 2015 Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council has discussed this topic at length and suggested instead that the Council address segments of concern. Councilmember Brausen referenced a segment beginning at Flag Avenue to 16th. He stated there was a beautiful tree canopy and, based on the input of the residents, he would be in favor of removing that segment with the exception of the small segment that ran along 169 and connected to Wayzata Boulevard. Councilmember Spano referenced a specific segment that was heavily treed along Hillsboro and stated it did not appear there was a good fit because of the tree locations. Councilmember Sanger stated she would support the request to remove the segment of sidewalk proposed by Councilmember Brausen, as she did not believe that the segment would provide a connection to a destination. Councilmember Mavity stated she believed removing small segments in this type of manner would impact the overall connectedness of the system. It was the consensus of the City Council to remove the segment of sidewalk proposed by Councilmember Brausen. Councilmember Brausen referenced the Texas segment and stated he supported that segment. Councilmember Lindberg referenced the canopy that would be lost and questioned what those trees would be replaced with. Mr. Sullivan stated he worked with the Tree Inspector to determine an adequate planting plan and mix of species. Councilmember Sanger referenced a letter from a resident that was submitted the previous week. Mr. Sullivan explained that the letter referred to the Zoning Code and provided additional information on the Tree Preservation Plan. Councilmember Sanger requested that staff reply in writing to that resident. Councilmember Mavity stated the comment had been made many times that the “City just planted this tree in my yard”. She believed that there had been, and should be, better coordination with staff to prevent planting from occurring in the right-of-way area where future sidewalks may be built. Councilmember Sanger also asked that trees not be planted under the power lines. Councilmember Lindberg referenced a portion of the Walker Street segment and stated although there were positive comments for this segment the residents questioned the level of flexibility. He explained the residents wanted that segment pulled to the curb. Mr. Sullivan provided additional information on locations of other segments along Walker. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: Study Session Minutes of March 9, 2015 Mr. Harmening provided information on the benefit of boulevards. He stated if the decision was made to pull the sidewalk to the curb in one situation, that would most likely be requested in many other instances. Mr. Sullivan provided additional information regarding storm water treatment as well as other benefits to plantings and tree roots. He stated the general minimum width would be a five-foot to five-foot ratio between boulevard and sidewalk, or a four-foot to four-foot minimum. Councilmember Spano stated with respect to the Walker segment he would support a five-foot boulevard and five-foot sidewalk. He also suggested that the existing sidewalk segment be made more conformant to the other segments. Councilmember Sanger stated she would also support a five-foot sidewalk with a five-foot boulevard, or even a three-foot boulevard. She stated in reference to the existing segment she would not support replacing the segment for only aesthetic purposes. Councilmember Hallfin stated he would support reconfiguring the existing segment. Councilmember Sanger stated she would support the comments made by a resident the previous week regarding the 169 frontage road. Ms. Heiser reviewed the public process that would be followed. Councilmember Mavity referenced comments regarding bicycle lanes planned for 2022. Mr. Harmening suggested that these segments be included in the presentation scheduled for the following week and a decision could be made by the Council at that time. Ms. Heiser questioned if the segments should be entirely removed from the plan or whether they should simply be postponed. It was the consensus of the City Council to remove the segments entirely when/if direction was given. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to continue to pursue the installation of the proposed 2015 sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Mr. Harmening advised that the League of Minnesota Cities encouraged cities to endorse early voting and noted that the Resolution would appear on the Consent Agenda. He advised of a retirement party for Ms. Stroth. He stated there had been discussion regarding the State updating the rail plan, which was done approximately every five years. He advised that some southern communities were requesting additional study. It was confirmed to follow the current City policy. Councilmember Brausen commented on the housing report and opined that affordable senior housing was a necessity he would like to discuss in the future. Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: Study Session Minutes of March 9, 2015 Written reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. Update on Hennepin County Ordinance Relating to E-Cigarettes 6. 2014 Annual Housing Programs Activity Report 7. Ottawa Avenue Parking Restrictions (between W. 28th Street and Highway 25) 8. Minnesota State Residential Code Update 9. Update on 2015 Minnesota Department of Transportation Construction Projects ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 16, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:45 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Jack Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Shamla), Interim Communications Coordinator (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Update on 2015 Minnesota Department of Transportation Construction Projects Ms. Heiser presented the staff report and advised that MnDOT announced a pavement rehab project on Highway 169 scheduled to start in late 2016. She stated that MnDOT informed the City that the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge would close on Monday, March 23, and the tear down of the bridge would occur the following weekend. She referenced the City’s communications plan and reminded Council that this was a MnDOT project and City staff would work to enhance MnDOT’s communications and make sure consistent messages were provided to residents. Councilmember Sanger stated she contacted April Crockett at MnDOT about providing signage to the businesses that would be impacted along Minnetonka Boulevard but had not yet received a response. She expressed concern that people would not know that the businesses between Ottawa and Salem were still open for business during construction. Ms. Heiser stated City staff participated in weekly meetings with MnDOT and agreed to follow- up with Ms. Crockett about signage. She discussed several pinch points on the west side of Highway 100, including the intersection near Most Holy Family, Dakota Avenue by the high school, and Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue. She advised staff had indicated to MnDOT there may need to be a flagger, especially at the school. She also discussed the City’s Traffic Committee and advised that the City would continue to monitor the traffic and see if any of the low cost options would work to resolve traffic-related concerns. Councilmember Brausen urged the City to make sure communications were being provided to the schools and School District as well as some type of announcement to parents. He stated part of the problem was around the junior high school where parents drop off their kids and suggested that the City encourage more parents to send their kids to school on the buses to avoid traffic issues. Ms. Heiser also discussed the traffic modeling done at Wooddale and Highway 7 and possible measures to ease traffic and address safety concerns. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of March 16, 2015 Councilmember Mavity asked if a sign could be installed instructing cars to stop for trail users in the crosswalk. Councilmember Sanger stated she did not agree with the suggestion of re-striping Wooddale Avenue into four lanes because of continued concerns over pedestrian safety, which would be worse with four lanes of traffic. Ms. Heiser stated staff recently received clarification from MnDOT about temporary traffic signals at this location and MnDOT had confirmed that this location would not need the interconnect to the railroad tracks because the location of the signals would be slightly further than the rules allow. She indicated that temporary installation of signals would take approximately three weeks to design and cost approximately $150,000 to install, adding that staff continued to meet with MnDOT about the ramps and temporary signals and had asked MnDOT to design the temporary signals so they were ready for installation. She stated that staff also had conversations with Three Rivers Park District about installing a temporary pedestrian activated flasher at the trail crossing. Councilmember Sanger suggested shutting down the ramps from Highway 7 and having drivers exit at Louisiana Avenue. Ms. Heiser indicated that staff discussed that possibility but other things needed to be completed on the Louisiana Avenue project, including permanent signage, road striping and completion of the landscaping, scheduled to be completed by mid-June. The City would have further discussion about the possibility of changing the detour from Wooddale to Louisiana. Councilmember Mavity asked for staff’s recommendation on protecting the trail users. Ms. Heiser replied staff would like to explore installing a centerline crosswalk sign. She stated that Three Rivers had indicated it was open to installing a flashing pedestrian crosswalk sign and the sign would cost approximately $15,000-$20,000. Council continued its discussion regarding mitigation of traffic concerns at Wooddale and Highway 7. It was the consensus of the City Council that all-way stop controls at Highway 7 and Wooddale should not be installed. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to continue working with MnDOT on installation of temporary signals at Highway 7 and Wooddale and to continue working with Three Rivers Park District on installation of a flashing trail crossing sign. Councilmember Sanger suggested installing speed humps to slow people down at the trail crossing. Ms. Heiser agreed to follow-up on this. Mr. Shamla advised that MnDOT had committed to a police officer at the top of the ramps on Highway 7 and Wooddale during peak times until it was determined how traffic flowed in this area. Ms. Heiser discussed the upcoming MnDOT projects on I-394 and I-494 and indicated that further updates would be provided to Council as staff learned more details about these projects. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of March 16, 2015 She requested that any comments or complaints be directed to April Crockett or Bobbie Dahlke at MnDOT, with copies provided to Mr. Shamla. Mayor Pro Tem Spano adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 16, 2015 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Spano called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Shamla), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition for City Clerk Nancy Stroth’s Retirement After 15 Years of Service Mayor Pro Tem Spano stated in her role as City Clerk Ms. Stroth had handled the election system, one of the most important functions in the City. He thanked her for 15 years of dedicated service. Following congratulatory remarks from each of the councilmembers and Ms. Gothberg, Mayor Pro Tem Spano presented Ms. Stroth with a certificate of appreciation acknowledging her 15 years of service to the City. Ms. Stroth stated it had been an honor and a privilege to work for the City. She stated she had many rewarding experiences and would cherish the memories and friendships she made, and was looking forward to retirement and spending more time with her family. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes February 23, 2015 Councilmember Lindberg requested that the second sentence of the sixth paragraph on page 4 be revised to state “He felt that a materials ban was the right thing to do but questioned how such a ban would be enforced and also questioned the City’s role questioned how a materials ban would be enforced and questioned the City’s role.” City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2015 The minutes were approved as amended. 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. 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 15-036 authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions west on Toledo Avenue on 26th Street. 4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2463-15 Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Changing Boundaries of Zoning Districts - Meadowbrook Golf Course and authorize summary publication. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 15-037 approving acceptance of a Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant from the Metropolitan Council in the amount of $50,000 for the exploration of soils in Wolfe Park/The Rec Center. 4d. Approve an Agreement between the City and Hennepin County to agree to work together to further the goals of the Southwest Corridor Investment Framework. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-038 in Support of Legislation Establishing an Early Voting Process for voters in Minnesota. 4f. Approve filing of Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 4, 2015. 4g. Approve filing of Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP meeting minutes of February 4, 2015. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 5. Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to appoint Jayne Stevenson as Youth Commissioner to the Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP for a term expiring August 31, 2015. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). Mayor Pro Tem Spano pointed out there were youth openings on various commissions and encouraged other youth to get involved in these commissions. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2015 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. 2015 Connect the Park! Projects. Resolutions No. 15-039, No. 15-040 and No. 15-041. Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report and stated that the proposed 2015 projects were presented at the public hearing on March 2, 2015, and further discussed by Council at its March 9th study session. The proposed resolutions were prepared based on feedback received at the public hearing and study session. Councilmember Brausen thanked everyone who contacted him or City staff about the proposed segments and also thanked those who attended the open houses and testified at the public hearing. He stated the project was a big undertaking and government worked best when citizens participated. The St. Louis Park residents who became involved have all worked to make this a better project and a better community. He stated the Connect the Park! project was conceived out of the community visioning process and adopted after much public participation and was supported by the vast majority of citizens, by civic leaders, by the schools and parent teacher organizations, and the project aimed to make St. Louis Park a more walkable and healthy community. He stated after listening to his constituents, he would like to amend the proposed resolution by deleting segments A- D in the Crestview and Westdale neighborhoods. He stated the neighbors had almost universally indicated those segments were unnecessary to enhance their neighborhood and they felt their neighborhood was already a safe and walkable community with low traffic. He added he was not convinced those sidewalks served a purpose for safety or connecting residents with other St. Louis Park amenities, e.g., Westwood Nature Center, and given the neighborhood sentiments he was compelled to delete segments A-D from the Connect the Park! project. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt Resolution No. 15-039 Accepting the Project Report for Project No. 4015-2000, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Segments A-E, as amended to delete Segments A-D. Councilmember Mavity stated she was a strong supporter of sidewalks and she understood the neighborhood’s reasons for wanting to remove Segments A-D. She felt it was unfortunate that Westmoreland Lane was previously removed from the Connect the Park! Plan and stated she would not support the amended resolution because she felt the City needed to continue to move forward with creating a sidewalk system throughout the City. She added that removing sidewalk segments here and there had created the disjointed system that existed today and the Connect the Park! Plan was created to correct the disjointed system. Councilmember Sanger agreed it was a mistake to remove Westmoreland Lane from this project because without that segment, the Flag Avenue and Hillsboro Avenue segments did not make sense. She stated she would support the motion but felt at some point in the future Council should restudy the question of whether both segments should be put back into the plan. Councilmember Hallfin stated this was a case where the neighborhood came to Council and presented reasonable arguments for removing sidewalk segments and, as a result, the City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2015 segments were being removed. He stated the City Council listened to its constituents and because of that, the public process worked well. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Mavity opposed; Mayor Jacobs absent). Mr. Sullivan reviewed Segments F-I and advised this portion of the project added some missing segments and staff felt it was best to put those segments together into one bid package to achieve economies of scale. Councilmember Lindberg stated that residents previously came forward with concerns about the sidewalk’s proximity to homes and the question was posed whether the sidewalk could be placed closer to the curb, however, staff advised that was not reasonable given some storm water issues. He stated Council discussed this on March 9th and learned that the sidewalk could be reduced to 5’ and requested that Council provide direction to reduce the boulevard to 5’, which would provide an additional 2’ buffer between homes and the sidewalk. He felt this was a reasonable request by the neighborhood and got the project done in a way that represented the best possible outcome of the public process. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 15-040 Accepting the Project Report for Project No. 4015-2000, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Segments F-I, as amended to reduce the sidewalk width to 5’ and reduce the boulevard to 5’ The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). Mr. Sullivan presented Segments J-R and advised that the segments represented additional segments Council requested in order to fill gaps to enhance the overall system. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 15-041 Accepting the Project Report for Project No. 4015-2000, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Segments J-R. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 8b. Project Report: Municipal State Aid Project – Walker/36th Street – Project No. 4015-1100. Resolution No. 15-042. Mr. Shamla presented the staff report and explained the various components of the 2015 MSA project. He stated that the project was located within the Reilly Tar site and required a Response Action Plan. He explained all contaminated material would be hauled to a landfill and an environmental consultant would be onsite during the removal of materials. He discussed the bikeways being added to Walker/36th Street and noted that parking would be limited to accommodate the bike lanes. He advised the project was expected to take five months and roads would be open to local traffic with access to driveways most times unless the contractor was digging in the road. He stated the engineer’s estimate for the project was $2,694,000 and would be funded through Municipal State Aid, the Pavement Management Fund, the Water Utility Fund, and Sanitary Utility Fund. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2015 It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 15-042 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project No. 4015-1100, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids. Councilmember Lindberg noted the reference to seven day limited access to driveways in order to allow time for the concrete to cure and asked about advance notice. He also asked about limited access to the businesses and industrial areas east of Louisiana Avenue and whether staff had contacted those businesses. Mr. Shamla stated the contractor would typically provide 48 hour notice about limited driveway access. He advised staff had not communicated directly with the businesses east of Louisiana Avenue, adding that those businesses would always have access and the City could provide signage if they would like. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). Councilmember Mavity stated the Connect the Park! plan was a ten year plan and some of the projects extended out to 2022. She stated Council received requests from residents to move projects around and encouraged residents to contact Council and/or City staff with similar requests. She noted that a request from the Minikahda Vista neighborhood regarding quicker installation of a bike lane on 38th Street would be considered in the near future. 8c. Traffic Study No. 651: Authorize Parking Restrictions on Ottawa Avenue (28th Street & Highway 25). Resolution No. 15-043. Ms. Heiser presented the staff report and presented a map depicting existing conditions. She explained that parking was proposed to be restricted on the west side of Ottawa from W. 28th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and noted that residents were supportive of the restriction. She stated parking on the west side from Minnetonka Boulevard to CSAH 25 would be restricted during the am and pm peak periods and no parking would be allowed on the east side of Ottawa. She presented a revised resolution and explained that the resolution from 1988 had to be rescinded. She stated staff proposed to install no parking signs this week, with a grace period of one week to allow drivers to become educated about the new parking restrictions. She noted the Police Department was supportive of the proposed grace period. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to adopt Resolution No. 15-043 Authorizing Installation of “No Parking” Restrictions on Ottawa Avenue between 28th Street and CSAH 25 – Traffic Study No. 651. Councilmember Sanger thanked staff for working on the issue and indicated residents had been asking for parking restrictions for a long time. She stated the proposal should help traffic flow better in the area. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2015 8d. Conditional Use Permit for Excavation at 4106 Forest Lane. Resolution No. 15-044. Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and stated the applicant submitted an application to excavate 816 cubic yards of soil for construction of a new home at 4106 Forest Lane. He stated the parcel was vacant and had 31’ of grade change from the edge of the street to the back of the property. After excavation was completed, there would be a 10’ slope at the back of the property and an 8’ grade change from the edge of the street. He stated an erosion control plan had been submitted, the proposed haul route was CSAH 25 and France Avenue, and hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for five days and it was expected that 14 trucks per day would haul a total of 68 loads. He advised that a neighborhood meeting was held on February 14th and there were no concerns expressed by the neighbors in attendance. He introduced the property owner, Ms. Tiffany Han, and the architect, Mr. Timothy Alt, from ALTUS Architecture & Design. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 15-044 Granting Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-79(b) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Excavation of Approximately 816 Cubic Yards of Soil from Property Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential District located at 4106 Forest Lane. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 8e. Bee-Safe Community Resolution. Resolution No. 15-045. Mr. Vaughan presented the staff report and stated the City had performed Integrated Pest Management for a number of years, selectively treating park turf areas, and had reduced the amount of spraying done in the City’s parks. He stated the proposed resolution included eight specific parks to be designated as “Bee-Safe” parks where no chemicals would be sprayed. The resolution provided for intensive public education about bees. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 15-045 Endorsing “Bee-Safe” Policies and Procedures. Ms. Judy Chucker, 2260 Ridge Drive, stated that “Humming for Bees” had been impressed by the City Council’s enthusiasm to adopt this resolution and thanked Council for its action and also thanked Mr. Vaughan. She stated their overriding purpose was to start a conversation about threats to the environment and this resolution was not meant to be symbolic, rather, they saw it as a dynamic document that would expand the public’s consciousness of positive choices they could make, consistent with Vision St. Louis Park about environmental stewardship and best practices. She stated the resolution called for solutions to address the problem of lost habitats and food sources and, by passing this resolution, the City Council supported pollinators and the entire food web. She announced an event to celebrate bees on Tuesday, June 30, from 5-8:00 p.m. at Excelsior Commons. Mr. Joe Wiersma, 4124 Colorado Avenue, thanked those who helped him move his bees last year after the flooding. He stated he had always had an interest in bees and had kept bees for 40 years in St. Louis Park. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2015 Ms. Nora Wildgen White, 4144 Brookside Avenue, stated that worldwide scientific studies had demonstrated that neonicotinoids could persist for 19 years or longer and pollinators were vulnerable to low doses of neonicotinoids. She stated it was time that communities took pollinator protection into their own hands and she was confident this could be done one yard and one city at a time. Ms. Melissa Hochstetler, 3120 Raleigh, stated she was an organic farmer and bees all over the country contributed to her work. She encouraged everyone to give something back to the pollinators and plant some food for them and stop spraying pesticides. Councilmember Brausen thanked the bee-safe advocates for pushing this issue. He stated he had not sprayed pesticides or used fertilizer all the years he had lived here and was converting his turf to native species and encouraged others to consider doing the same. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 9. Communications Councilmember Sanger stated that MnDOT notified the City that the closure of the Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge was changed to Monday, March 23rd, at 9:00 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Spano noted that City staff and Council would do their best to provide residents with up-to-date information from MnDOT and encouraged residents to check the City’s website, Twitter, and Facebook for updates and announcements. Councilmember Hallfin stated the City’s website had a link to the MnDOT website and residents could sign up to receive email updates from MnDOT. Councilmember Brausen advised that he attended two community outreach meetings last week hosted by the Police Department. He stated the community meetings were intended to continue to build the Police Department’s relationships with citizens and provided an opportunity to build trust in public servants. He stated the Police Department planned to hold 35 meetings throughout the City and encouraged citizens to attend. 10. Adjournment Mayor Pro Tem Spano adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 23, 2015 The meeting convened at 7:06 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Olson), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 6 & 13, 2015 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for April 6th and the proposed study session agenda for April 13th. 2. Land Use and Zoning – Parkdale Drive Area Mr. Walther presented the staff report and advised that a Purchase Agreement was entered into between Goldman Sachs and Excelsior Group to purchase all six of the Parkdales office properties. Councilmember Brausen stated these areas represented portals to the community and the City should intentionally guide development that would enhance the community. He stated the strip mall property owner spoke to City staff about their interest in pursuing an option for the property at 5305 Parkdale Drive and rezoning the site to commercial, but the City indicated it did not currently have the time or resources to consider rezoning the site because of other priorities. Councilmember Sanger stated she did not want to see the area spot zoned and would rather see the entire site redeveloped as one larger parcel, possibly commercial or mixed use. Her preference was to wait until sufficient staff resources existed and to let the property stay the way it was for now. Councilmember Brausen stated the character of the area had moved away from industrial and he felt this was a great location for senior affordable housing. Councilmember Spano stated the site was underutilized and the current use did not represent what the City wanted for this site in the future. He stated he would like to undertake a broader comprehensive review of the south end of the site to explore other uses and how the site interacted with the railroad tracks and Highway 100. Mr. Harmening stated this site did not represent the City’s highest priority and he felt the City should wait to see what happened with the Parkdale properties to the north. He stated that Council had identified its first priority as Southwest LRT and he felt that staff time was better City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2015 spent on that issue. He indicated he would add this site to the list of sites to consider in the future. Councilmember Lindberg stated he respected Council’s priorities with respect to Southwest LRT, but wanted Council to be open enough from a policy perspective to change some of its priorities when an opportunity presented itself and to remain open to other opportunities that needed Council’s attention. 3. 2015 Assessment Report Mr. Bultema presented the staff report and 2015 valuation report. He stated that the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization would convene on April 13, 2015, and the Assistant Hennepin County Assessor would attend the Local Board meetings to listen. He reviewed 2014 market performance and advised the St. Louis Park community was extremely marketable and values were moving up with single-family stock showing a sustainable rate of growth of approximately 4%. He stated that condos were doing very well and the complexes that saw major declines in 2012 and 2013 were bouncing back quickly. He stated the Class A and B apartment market continued to increase and the Class C market was starting to take off. He discussed the commercial and industrial properties, and noted a correction on page 7 of the staff report indicating Commercial-Industrial assessed market value change of +3.6% with improvements should state +8.7% with improvements. He stated the City’s industrial stock did not move a lot and most of the stock was fairly dated, with most new stock being constructed outside of the City primarily due to the City’s high land values. He stated that the City’s commercial stock was moving up at a healthy rate and rental rates were being pushed up as a result of the influx of institutional grade investors and coastal money. He discussed valuation density and stated the Shops at West End had a value density of $7.7 million per acre, Knollwood’s value density was $2.8 million per acre, the City’s industrial stock averaged $1 million per acre, and single-family stock averaged $900,000 per acre. He also discussed tax capacity and fiscal disparities and stated the City would continue to pay into the fiscal disparities pool. 4. Proposed Inclusionary Housing Policy Review Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report and proposed inclusionary affordable housing policy. She explained that market rate multi-unit developments that received financial assistance from the City would be required to provide affordable units. The requirement could be fulfilled by the inclusion of affordable units within the proposed development on-site or at another site approved by the City, or the developer could make payment of a fee in lieu of developing any affordable units. She reviewed the proposed affordability levels and indicated that 60% affordability was consistent with affordability level requirements for the Federal tax credit program and was also consistent with other policies reviewed by staff. She advised that Cornerstone had a financial feasibility calculation tool that the City used to test how requiring a certain percentage of affordable units affected the financial feasibility of a project. The City found it was more difficult to maintain profit margins if over 10% of units at 60% AMI were required without having some other concessions, e.g., less parking. She reviewed other key components of the policy including length of affordability requirement, bedroom mix, building size, and tenant eligibility. She stated the policy did not include cost mitigating incentives such as a density bonus or parking requirement reduction and these incentives could be further explored if Council desired. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2015 Councilmember Hallfin stated his opposition to allowing a developer to make payment of a fee to the City in lieu of developing any affordable housing units because if that option was available to developers they would likely pay the fee and not include any affordable units in a project. Councilmember Mavity spoke in favor of the proposed inclusionary affordable housing policy and asked about staff capacity in terms of enforcement and making sure properties were being maintained. Ms. Schnitker advised that issues related to enforcement and staff capacity would need to be addressed in the guidelines. She stated it would be necessary to go through an annual process of certifying incomes for eligible tenants. Councilmember Mavity suggested that Council consider increasing its permit fees to recognize the increased time and effort of City staff. She felt that having incentives for reduced parking and increased density made sense in specific areas where appropriate. She stated she felt this was a great policy and wanted to see a policy that targeted people making $30,000 a year that also included incentives. Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for their hard work on the policy and expressed his support for the policy with the exception of allowing a developer to make payment of a fee in lieu of developing affordable units. He questioned whether the proposed policy did enough; referencing Met Council’s housing goals and the City’s requirement to add 332 units, half of which were supposed to be geared toward people making 30% of AMI. He questioned how the City would meet that goal. He stated he would like the City to be more aggressive with the target and require 18-20% affordable housing units. Councilmember Spano agreed that the policy should not include an option for developers to make a payment in lieu of including affordable units. He urged the City to remain mindful about having regular conversations with tenants as their income grows vis-à-vis the AMI scale. He spoke in favor of the density bonus incentive, but only in specific areas. He asked if consideration had been given to having a broad number for requiring affordable units and then letting the developer fit his project within that requirement, e.g., four affordable units at 30% AMI and eight affordable units at 50% AMI or all of the affordable units at 60% AMI. Ms. Schnitker did not feel that developers would be able to get to 30% AMI without deep subsidies and agreed to look at this further, including the possibility of requiring fewer units at greater affordability levels. Councilmember Sanger asked how heavily involved City staff needed to be as it related to screening eligibility of tenants, either initially or ongoing, and enforcement of the policy’s requirements. She expressed concerns regarding the administrative burden on City staff. Ms. Schnitker stated a majority of the income certification work, waiting list management, and eligibility screening would be done by the developer. She explained the developer would have to submit a plan to the City describing how this would be accomplished. She acknowledged that the City would need to monitor the plan and consider how involved City staff should be with respect to enforcement. Councilmember Lindberg stated he was not overly excited about the idea of providing density bonuses or parking requirement reductions, and was concerned about the practical implications City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 4 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2015 to neighborhoods directly impacted by a particular project. He expressed reservations about going too far without further study of these issues. He stated he was also concerned about the offsite construction component and did not want to see a developer come into a highly marketable area and then have the option to provide affordable units in a less attractive area because it would send the wrong message. Councilmember Sanger suggested that the option state that affordable units constructed at another site had to be of a comparable quality. Mayor Jacobs spoke in favor of the proposed inclusionary affordable housing policy and was hopeful that other communities would adopt this type of policy. It was the consensus of the City Council that the inclusionary affordable housing policy should not allow the income and affordability requirements to be fulfilled by payment of a fee to the City in lieu of developing any income or rent-restricted housing units. Ms. Schnitker advised that City staff would continue working with the MN Challenge Project and Cornerstone and present a final draft of the policy to Council for review and approval in addition to drafting the implementation guidelines. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Mr. Harmening stated the Environment & Sustainability Commission submitted its annual report and work plan and asked if Council would like to meet with the Commission. It was the consensus of the City Council to meet with the Environment & Sustainability Commission to discuss the 2014 annual report and 2015 work plan. Mr. Harmening discussed staff’s concerns about the Environment & Sustainability Commission and requested input from Council about the Commission’s goals. Councilmember Mavity suggested having the Commission’s work groups submit their reports to Council and meet with Council to discuss their priorities. It was the consensus of the City Council to meet with the Environment & Sustainability Commission on April 13, 2015. Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Written reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. Environment & Sustainability Commission 2014 Annual Report & 2015 Work Plan 6. Update on Central Park West Project 7. Creation of JCPP Multicultural Advisory Committee 8. February 2015 Monthly Financial Report 9. Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code 10. Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3d) Page 5 Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2015 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3e UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APRIL 6, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:50 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Operations & Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Public Works Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Hall), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guest: None. 1. 2015 Water Meter Replacement Mr. Hanson presented the staff report regarding the water meter replacement process. He stated that the City would be touching every single residential, business, and industrial water meter within the City. There are roughly 14,000 meters and the process would take 10 to 14 months. He advised that property owners would be able to schedule times between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. He thanked all of the staff that worked on the project. He stated notices would be sent out in late April or early May, and residents would be able to call into a call center or go online to setup their appointment. Once scheduled, the contractor would call prior to the appointment to ensure that someone over 18 was at the home. He described the installation process and advised that the contractor would ensure that the meter was working correctly and would educate the customer before leaving the property. Councilmember Spano questioned the length of time to install a meter and whether phased notices would be sent out. Mr. Hanson advised that installation of the meter would take 40 to 60 minutes. He advised that the notices would be sent out in phased groups and agreed to provide the Council with the list of phases. Councilmember Sanger noted that snowbirds may be gone when their area was replaced. Mr. Hanson stated there would be a communication plan in place so that snowbirds would be able to schedule their meter replacement before they leave for the winter. It was noted that the City was aware of most of the snowbirds. Mayor Jacobs stated that residents may be concerned that the installation person would be looking at other issues while they are at the property. He also asked what would happen if the residence either didn’t have a shutoff valve or it wasn’t operational. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3e) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 6, 2015 Mr. Hanson stated that the installer would only be doing the meter replacement and would not be looking at any other issues or performing any other services. He noted that the installers had experience doing this in other metro cities and had alternative options to shut off the water at the property. Councilmember Sanger questioned if there would be interpretation services available should the homeowner not speak English. Mr. Hanson confirmed that interpretation services would be available. Mr. Harmening stated that this situation was highly unusual and unique, as the City would be replacing meters at every property. He stated that the installer would have background checks and the truck and the installer would be clearly identified. He advised that staff was also working on a complete education packet for residents in order to make the process as smooth as possible. Mr. Hanson confirmed that water conservation and other educational information would be included in the packet. Councilmember Mavity questioned if a resident could request two people to install if they were uncomfortable having just one person enter their house. Mr. Hanson confirmed that there were additional options in which two installers could come to the property or City staff could complete the process. He stated the homeowner would also have the option to hire, at their own cost, a private licensed installer to complete the service. He displayed a photograph with the antenna that would be located on the water tower and provided information on the size of the box that would be placed on homes. Councilmember Mavity stated that this was highly personal and asked that the Council be able to conduct a methodical review of how the installers were doing within the first couple of weeks and then after a few months. Councilmember Lindberg questioned if this should provide better data on actual uses. Mr. Hanson stated that the older the meter was, the slower it ran and there was potential for some homeowners to see a fluctuation. He stated that most of the homeowners would not see a large change. Mr. Hanson stated that there were two reasons for a non-responsive customer. The first was that the homeowner was not home, and the second was that the homeowner did not want to have the radio read meter installed. He stated that three options were available, including shutting off the water until the new meter was installed, installing the new meter at the furthest point (usually the garage), or letting the homeowner keep the existing meter at an additional charge. Councilmember Sanger questioned the scientific data regarding the possible long-term effects of the radio read meter. Mr. Hanson stated that there was no long-term effect, noting that cell phones used a stronger signal. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3e) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 6, 2015 Mayor Jacobs stated he would not be in favor of shutting off someone’s water and would be okay with charging an additional fee for those that wanted to keep their current meter. Councilmember Sanger stated she would not like to give homeowners an option to keep the existing meter. She stated that although it was harsh to shut off someone’s water, the City did shut off the utility if bills were not paid. Councilmember Lindberg stated that he understood the staff recommendation to shut the water off but stated he did have a negative reaction to that option. He also acknowledged that the City was providing a number of options for people to choose and stated he would not like to see the shut off option mentioned early in the process. Mr. Hanson stated that there would be options listed in several letters before a possible shut off was mentioned. Councilmember Brausen stated that he would support the options available, including possible shut off. Councilmember Mavity stated her concern would be that some people would not understand the communication, for whatever reason, and could possibly have their water shut off. Mayor Jacobs stated he would have a hard time shutting off someone’s water if they were paying their bill. Councilmember Mavity stated there were residents in the City that were not aware of water being shut off for a road construction project because they never use their front door and the notice had been put on the front door. She suggested that someone possibly door knock and/or try alternative doors. Councilmember Spano stated that a lot of people and staff time would need to be involved to complete that action. He stated that perhaps people could be calling the home. Mr. Hanson stated there was a difference between threatening to shut off the water and actually doing it, noting that the possibility of shutting off the water would be enough to get a large percentage of the non-responsive people to respond. It was noted that the City did not have telephone numbers for all residents. Councilmember Sanger suggested that an insert could be included in the water bill as additional notification for non-responders. Councilmember Hallfin stated that although it may be considered harsh, there was one way to get someone’s attention for sure and that was shutting the water off. He stated that there would be multiple attempts to resolve the situation before the shut off option was used. Councilmember Spano stated he would support the shut off option and would not want to see staff going out to read old meters. He questioned if this had been done in other communities and what results were achieved. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3e) Page 4 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 6, 2015 Mr. Hanson stated other cities had followed the same process with the proposed contractor. He stated cities that did not use the shut off option had stated that they wished they would have implemented that option during the installation process. Councilmember Sanger stated that staff should also pay attention to rental properties to ensure that the correct person was notified. Mr. Hanson stated that both renters and landlords would be notified. It was the consensus of the City Council to support the comprehensive water meter replacement project and direct staff to try to avoid shutting off someone’s water. If the resident was completely unresponsive, the shut off option could be utilized after the fourth notice and a very active attempt to personally contact the resident. If the homeowner did not want to have City staff or the installer in their home they could hire a licensed contractor to complete the meter replacement at their own cost. There would also be an option for the antenna to be located in another location, such as the garage, at additional cost. 2. Off-Sale Liquor License Application from Thien’s Inc. for St. Louis Park Liquor No comments made. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) No comments made. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 3f UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APRIL 6, 2015 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Senior Project Manager (Mr. Elkin), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guests: None. 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition of Donation Councilmember Spano expressed the City Council’s gratitude to Donna Hill for her donation of $50 for the purchase of supplies for Westwood Nature Center. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Meeting Minutes March 2, 2015 Councilmember Sanger requested on page four, the last full paragraph, should read, “roads the frontage road on the east side of TH 169…” The minutes were approved as amended. 3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes (Closed Executive Session) March 23, 2015 The minutes were approved as presented. 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 City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 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. 4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of February 21, 2015 through March 27, 2015. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 15-046 of Support for Bader Development’s submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program for its proposed Encore project. 4c. Designate Park Construction Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $2,485,387.92 for the 2015 Local Street Rehabilitation Project (Area 3) - Project No. 4015-1003. 4d. Designate Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $454,916 for the 36th Street W. at Wooddale Avenue and at Xenwood Avenue - Project# 4014-1300. 4e. Designate Insituform Technologies as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $273,460.80 for the Sanitary Sewer Main Rehab Project #4014-3003. 4f. Appoint City Clerk Melissa Kennedy as responsible authority and data practices compliance official under MN Statutes Chapter 13. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 15-047 Authorizing Revision of Parking Restrictions along Excelsior Boulevard at 4901, 4907, and 4911. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 15-048 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Donna Hill in the amount of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center to be used for program supplies. 4i Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2014 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 15-049 authorizing final payment in the amount of $5,634.45 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 18 (Painting) for Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No. 59-11. 4k. Approve the agreement to allow Fire Department personnel to have access to the electronic patient record system within Park Nicollet. 4l. Approve Resolution No. 15-050 of Support for Oppidan’s submission of a grant application to the Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Program for its proposed “Bally’s” redevelopment project. The Council approved the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions Councilmember Lindberg stated that the Council interviewed several youth applicants. He reviewed the Council recommended appointments to the Police Advisory Commission and to the Planning Commission. He encouraged other youth in the community to find opportunities to get involved in City government. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to appoint Ian McIntyre as Youth Commissioner to the Police Advisory Commission for a term to expire August 31, 2015, and to appoint Ethan Rickert as Youth Commissioner to the Planning Commission for a term to expire August 31, 2015. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Central Park West – Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way Mr. Walther presented the staff report regarding the vacation of the sewer easement and recommended that the vacation be conditioned upon installation and City acceptance of the new, rerouted sewer main. He advised that the applicant also requested vacation of a portion of excess right-of-way along Utica Avenue. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating a Public Sewer Easement and Sewer Construction Easement and set the Second Reading of Ordinance for April 20, 2015. Councilmember Sanger confirmed that it would be the financial responsibility of the applicant to relocate the sewer. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve First Reading of an Ordinance vacating right-of-way and set the Second Reading of Ordinance for April 20, 2015. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Confirm Appointment of Melissa Kennedy to City Clerk for the City of St. Louis Park – Resolution No. 15-051 Ms. Gothberg presented the staff report regarding the City Clerk position. She reviewed the interview process and advised that the proposed candidate previously worked in Inver Grove Heights for nine years. Melissa Kennedy stated that she was excited for the opportunity to work for the City. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to waive the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-051, Confirming the Appointment of Melissa Kennedy to the Position of City Clerk of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy Mr. Elkin introduced the members of the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EPPP) Work Group. Ryan Griffin, member of the EPPP Work Group, stated that they developed a policy through great collaborative effort. Councilmember Sanger stated it was obvious that a great deal of effort went into the development of the policy. She questioned how staff would know if a product qualified under the guidelines of the policy. Mr. Griffin stated there would be a list available to staff for reference. He stated that the policy was intended to be a guide and the environmentally preferable purchase should be made when available. He stated whenever a department had success in finding a product that met the guidelines, they should report that to the City Sustainability Coordinator in order to track that information. Councilmember Brausen thanked City staff for their efforts throughout the process and also thanked the Work Group and Commission for their efforts. He stated he liked the goals listed in the policy and believed that if everyone worked together the idea could be successfully implemented to make the City an environmentally sustainable community. He noted that the cheapest and easiest option was not always the best option. Councilmember Mavity stated she was impressed by the level of professionalism that continued to come out of the Commission and their Work Groups. Councilmember Spano referenced F1 on page six, specifically the mention of quarterly evaluations, and wanted to ensure that reviews were done on a time schedule that actually produced the best amount of data. He noted that some facilities may only need to be reviewed every six months based on the timing of their purchasing. He questioned why the Rec Center was exempt from a lot of the policies. Mr. Griffin stated that the Rec Center specifically had to purchase chemicals for the pool. Councilmember Spano asked for additional information regarding the mechanics of pursuing clean energy investments. Mr. Griffin explained that whenever possible, when making an investment of that nature, clean energy should be the preferred option. Mr. Harmening stated that language would primarily apply to the purchase of fleet and mechanical equipment, such as possibly transitioning to electric vehicles and natural gas powered equipment. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 Councilmember Lindberg stated that not only was the policy doing the right thing, it was also an example of financial stewardship and investment in future generations. Mayor Jacobs stated this policy demonstrated that there are times when you need to spend a little more money in order to save money in the future. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive the reading and adopt the Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Central Park West Final Plat & Final Planned Unit Development – Resolution No. 15-052 and Resolution No. 15-053 Mr. Walther presented the staff report regarding the Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development for Central Park West. He reviewed the property location, features, and the original concept. He provided an update regarding the revised concept. He stated an environmental review was done with the Shops at West End process and had been updated since that time. He reviewed the infrastructure including sanitary sewer, water use, and also discussed the traffic information. He stated the property consisted of an outlot in St. Louis Park and three unplatted lots in Golden Valley. A subdivision variance was approved as part of the preliminary plat and the final plat was consistent with the preliminary approval. He reviewed the public dedication of drainage and utility easements as well as right-of-way, and stated that Utica Boulevard would also be reconstructed into a four-lane roadway with a landscaped median as part of this project. The project consisted of five buildings, as well as a parking ramp, and each building would have its own underground parking. Mr. Walther stated approximately 12.9 percent of the site would be designated as outdoor recreation area, which would meet the requirements of the City. He highlighted how the concept met the criteria of the Planned Unit Development requirements and reviewed the modifications requested. He reported the Planning Commission met on March 4th and recommended approval of the Final Plat and Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. He referenced Condition 1.F.(1) of the Final Plat and provided the corrected park dedication figure. David Graham, ESG Architects, stated there were key urban design elements in the concept. He stated this project included private buildings as well as privately developed and publicly accessible outdoor areas. This would include a network of pedestrian and streetscape features to extend the Shops at West End to help create a signature walkable urban community. He stated that the residential elements reduced the traffic figures and residential features would provide lifecycle and affordable housing to serve empty nesters, families, and millennials. The concept included a great lawn in the center with high-quality pavement for pedestrians and cyclists to move through the park, as well as a water feature. He explained the storm water would be harvested, treated, and then used for irrigation and service of the water feature. He noted they were also considering the artistic use of boulders and climbing walls as play structures. He advised that Utica Avenue would become a tree-lined boulevard with townhomes along the streetscape and activity connected to the street and landscaping. Each residential building would have its own amenities, including pools and rooftop terraces. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 Mr. Walther stated that the City of Golden Valley was also acting on this request, because a portion of the project was located in that city. He advised both cities had granted preliminary approval and noted Golden Valley would be considering the request the following evening. He indicated the future hotel and office buildings would come back separately for additional review when proposed for construction. Councilmember Brausen asked for additional information on the phasing of construction, specifically the park features. Mr. Graham reviewed the elements of the first phase of construction, including the park. Councilmember Spano referenced storm water treatment and asked for additional information regarding the sanitary sewer and storm water needs, as well as possibilities for the future. Mr. Walther stated that a number of innovative techniques were proposed for the treatment of storm water. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had established goals for phosphorus removal and the treatment for the West End and Central Park West areas alone would provide almost five times the 2020 goal amount. He stated additional future development could be accommodated as this would add capacity to the system. He noted there had never been an issue with storm water capacity on this site and reviewed the City requirements. Councilmember Mavity referenced the water use analysis and stated with this development the City would exceed the 90 percent water use threshold. She noted the Council had previously provided direction that this development should provide mitigation measures to address the issue of water capacity and questioned if there had been any changes to the development since the last time the Council provided that direction. Mr. Walther provided an update of the measures staff had taken, including the collection of a fee to make future improvements to the capacity. Luke Payne, Kimley-Horn, stated they heard the concern of the City with respect to water use and mitigated irrigation use with the water reuse system in order to reduce consumption up to 10% and provide a storm water benefit. Councilmember Sanger stated she was concerned with the capacity level that the City would be reaching with this development and questioned what additional measures staff was pursuing to improve that situation. Mr. Walther stated this project was simply contributing the last portion and did not account for the total water consumption rate. He explained the high level was not the usual capacity but was the amount used during peak demand in July. In an emergency situation, the City had the ability to tap into the water supply of four neighboring communities. Mr. Walther explained that as part of the long-term system and comprehensive planning processes, staff identified additional options, including the addition of treatment services at one of the well sites. He stated there had been some capacity improvements realized as a result of other things the City had done since the study began. He advised of additional strategies the City pursued, including watering City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 bans, native plantings, low flow fixtures, and the collection of a fee to fund future improvements. Councilmember Sanger stated those were things that the City could do community-wide and were not specific to this development. She stated she was concerned with the installation of a water feature. Councilmember Mavity stated this issue, in the course of this development, was raising concerns on a community basis. She asked that staff bring the policy issue back to a Study Session for the Council to further discuss capacity. Mr. Harmening stated this project did not ‘own’ the situation that the City was in and advised that the community ‘owned’ that situation. He stated if the City did not want to increase capacity, other measures would need to be pursued in regard to conservation. Mr. Harmening stated the developer did include the water reuse mechanism in addition to other conservation measures that would be met as required by the City. Councilmember Sanger stated the plan did not appear to provide safe bicycle access to the east side of Highway 100. Mr. Walther advised that portion of the plan was in Golden Valley and advised that Golden Valley was pursuing the option of collaborating with the developer in order to provide a bike path on the south side as you go through the underpass. He advised there were connections proposed through another program, but not specifically as part of this project, to add bike paths along Wayzata Boulevard and Quentin Avenue in both Golden Valley and St. Louis Park to connect to the Regional Trails. Councilmember Sanger stated it did not appear that there would be a Joint Powers Agreement between the two cities and she was concerned because the project crossed the boundaries of two municipalities. She questioned if the project would be allowed to begin construction without the execution of such an agreement. Mr. Walther believed the project could move forward with construction without such an agreement but noted that would be a more difficult route. He advised that Golden Valley had stated they would not be comfortable with one city taking over global control of the development and would instead like to consider each phase of the project as it moved forward. He stated there were existing mutual aid agreements in place in the case of fire response. Councilmember Sanger stated she would not be comfortable with the construction beginning until such an agreement was in place between St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to waive the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-052, Approving Final Plat for Central Park West, subject to conditions. Councilmember Mavity asked for additional information regarding the concerns expressed by Councilmember Sanger. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 3f) Page 8 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2015 Mr. Harmening stated that the City was well versed in the use of Joint Powers Agreements and advised that Golden Valley was not interested in that type of agreement. He stated that Golden Valley would like to deal with the project in chunks as they moved forward for development. He stated that while this may not be the preferred option, staff believed that the cities would be able to work together to figure it out. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed). It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to waive the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-053, Approving Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Central Park West, subject to conditions. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed). 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs stated that the City was aware of the poor condition of Highway 100 and staff sent a letter to MnDOT advising them of the City’s concerns. He asked that drivers be extra diligent and courteous during this time. Councilmember Hallfin announced the STEP annual fundraiser, Empty Bowls, would be held on April 23, 2015. Councilmember Lindberg referenced the Oak Hill Splash Pad and noted that residents would not have to pay a fee and the $1 fee would apply only to non-residents. Councilmember Brausen advised that a past Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Commission did come to the meeting but arrived late and was not able to provide her comments on the policy discussed tonight. He asked that any residents with input contact the City. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Public Service Worker John Monte and Engineering Technician Alan Oliveira RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolutions to recognize Public Service Worker John Monte for his 39 years of service and Engineering Technician Alan Oliveira for his 25 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: City p olicy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City Council. This consent item will officially adopt the resolutions that honor John and Al for their years of service. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolutions Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for John Monte and Alan Oliveira RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO PUBLIC SERVICE WORKER JOHN MONTE WHEREAS, John Monte began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park nearly 39 years ago on July 26, 1976; and WHEREAS, John has spent his entire career with the City of St. Louis Park at the Rec Center; and WHEREAS, John has performed over 40,000 ice resurfaces and maintained over 13 million gallons of outdoor pool water; and WHEREAS, John has maintained the Rec Center through numerous remodels, renovations, repairs and expansions; and WHEREAS, John has assured over his career that the hundreds of thousands of skaters, swimmers and facility users of the Rec Center are receiving the highest quality of service; and WHEREAS, John will enjoy his next chapter in life enjoying the comfort of his lake home in Ely with his wife MaryBeth, where the walleyes are always biting and the raspberries are always ripe; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Service Worker John Monte for his great contributions and nearly 39 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for John Monte and Alan Oliveira RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN ALAN OLIVEIRA WHEREAS, Al Oliveira began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park 25 years ago on April 9, 1990; and WHEREAS, Al has been an asset to the City of St. Louis Park for his commitment and dedication to the Engineering Department as an engineering technician, inspector, project manager and overall public servant. He has served as an consistent and reliable steward of the public’s resources and trust; and WHEREAS, Al has been instrumental in the City’s 11 year history of the Pavement Management Program paving over 35 miles of city streets and installing miles of new underground utilities providing residents quality roads and public utilities; and WHEREAS, Al has been the face of the City during complex summer long neighborhood road reconstruction projects. He has shown outstanding customer service and communication to the residents during these major projects while providing a steady hand working collaboratively with the contractors; and WHEREAS, Al has been a mentor to younger staff ensuring the City’s high quality of public infrastructure is maintained for many years to come; and WHEREAS, Al looks forward to retirement when he will have time to pursue his passion of pheasant hunting alongside his friends and behind his best hunting buddy, his yellow lab named Gus; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Engineering Technician Al Oliveira for his great contributions and 25 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 6, 2015 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: • Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating a public sewer easement and sewer construction easements, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. • Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating a portion of the Utica Avenue South right-of-way, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council agree with vacating these easements and excess right-of-way? SUMMARY: The Central Park West redevelopment site is located at 1511 Utica Ave South. City Council approved a final plat that will subdivide the parcel into 3 lots and one outlot, and a final planned unit development (PUD) for two multiple-family residential buildings, a future hotel, and two future office towers. In order for building permits to be issued, certain easements and right-of-way on the property need to be vacated. The applicant requests the City vacate a Public Sewer Easement and Sewer Construction Easements on the property. The existing public sewer line will be relocated to Utica Avenue South as part of the first phase of the redevelopment. Staff supports the proposed vacations. A condition of approval will be that the ordinance shall not be effective until the relocated public sewer is installed and accepted by the City. The applicant also requests the City vacate excess road right-of-way along Utica Avenue South. The application applies to an 82-foot long area on the east side of the road that was previously planned for an on-street parking bay. The plan changed and the parking bay is not needed. Legal descriptions and depictions of the subject areas are included in the attached ordinances. The City Council held a public hearing on April 6, 2015, and approved the first reading of the ordinances. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. The sewer relocations costs will be the responsibility of the developer. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinances & Ordinance Summaries for Publication Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West ORDINANCE NO. 2464 -15 ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AT 1511 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the easements proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on March 26, 2015 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the easements are not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said easements be vacated. Section 2. The easements described on attached Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park are vacated. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon relocation of the sewer and acceptance of the sewer by the City of St. Louis Park, and not less than fifteen days after its publication. First Reading April 6, 2015 Second Reading April 20, 2015 Date of Publication April 23, 2015 Date Ordinance may take effect May 8, 2015 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS That part of the following described sewer easement, recorded in Doc. No. 765858: A sewer easement in and across a strip of land 25 feet in width consisting of the East 25 feet of all that part of the E ½ of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, and an extension of the south half of Douglas Avenue west from State Highway No. 100 to a point 25 feet west of the east line of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, said Section 30. Lying within Outlot A, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of the following described sewer construction easement, recorded in Doc. No. 765858: A construction easement in and across a strip of land 50 feet in width consisting of the East 50 feet of all that part of the E ½ of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 30, Township 29, Range 24, and an extension of the south half of Douglas Avenue west from State Highway No. 100 to a point 50 feet west of the east line of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, said Section 30. Lying within Outlot A, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Jan 27, 2015 - 5:28pm - User:573 L:\PROJECTS\DUK18420.03\dwg\survey\18420.03-ESMT VACATION.dwg Approved:Drawn:Exhibit NumberProject No.Issued:Designed:Rev.:Date:DLC RESIDENTIALCENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARKDLMFH01/28/2015SCALE IN FEET0200DENOTES EASEMENT AREA TO BE VACATEDCity Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park WestPage 4 City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.2464-15 ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY EASEMENTS This ordinance states that a public sewer easement and sewer construction easements will be vacated at 1511 Utica Avenue South. This Ordinance shall take effect upon relocation of the sewer and acceptance of the sewer by the City of St. Louis Park, and not less than fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: April 23, 2015 City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West ORDINANCE NO. 2465-15 ORDINANCE VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1511 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on March 26, 2015 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said right-of-way be vacated. Section 2. The easements described on attached Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park is vacated. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. First Reading April 6, 2015 Second Reading April 20, 2015 Date of Publication April 23, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect May 8, 2015 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Utica Avenue South, as dedicated on the plat of THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of Outlot A, said plat; thence on an assumed bearing of South, along the west line of said Outlot A, a distance of 95.16 feet to a southwesterly corner of said Outlot A and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence, continuing on a bearing of South, a distance of 81.53 feet to a northwesterly corner of said Outlot A, and said line there terminating. Jan 29, 2015 - 11:53am - User:573 L:\PROJECTS\DUK18420.03\dwg\survey\18420.03-STREET VACATION.dwg Approved:Drawn:Exhibit NumberProject No.Issued:Designed:Rev.:Date:DLC RESIDENTIALCENTRAL PARK WESTST. LOUIS PARK, MNRIGHT OF WAY VACATION EXHIBITDLMFH01/29/2015SCALE IN FEET030That part of Utica Avenue South, as dedicated on the plat of THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County,Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line:Commencing at the northwest corner of Outlot A, said plat; thence on an assumed bearing of South,along the west line of said Outlot A, a distance of 95.16 feet to a southwesterly corner of said Outlot Aand the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence, continuing on a bearing of South, adistance of 81.53 feet to a northwesterly corner of said Outlot A, and said line there terminating.DESCRIPTION OF VACATED UTICA AVENUE SOUTHCity Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park WestPage 8 City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 9 Title: Second Reading of Ordinances Vacating Easements and Right-of-Way for Central Park West SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2465-15 AN ORDINANCE VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY This ordinance states that a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 1511 Utica Avenue South will be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: April 23, 2015 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Rotary Club of St. Louis Park for the Summer Concert Series ($1,000) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park in the amount of $1,000 for the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series. 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. The Rotary Club of St. Louis Park is graciously donating an amount of $1,000. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used toward the Summer Concert Series. The Rotary Club of St. Louis Park accepted donations at the 4th annual Bundled Up event held on January 31, 2015. The 4th Annual “Bundled Up” event took place at Oak Hill Park. A few hundred participants were in attendance to enjoy ice skating, horse drawn sleigh rides, s’mores over a bonfire, free cocoa, music, and other winter activities. This event was sponsored by the Rotary Club of St Louis Park, which also holds a raffle every year, with the proceeds going to support the City’s Summer Concert Series held at Wolfe Park. Also in attendance were the St. Louis Park Fire and Police Departments, who brought a fire engine and police cruiser for people to experience. Lastly, attendees had the chance to see the hawk from Westwood Hills Nature Center and to interact with a Naturalist. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to support the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series. The Series is budgeted in the Organized Recreation budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Jason West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Rotary Club of St. Louis Park for the Summer Concert Series ($1,000) RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 TO BE USED FOR THE SUMMER CONCERT SERIES 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, the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park donated $1,000 to assist in the funding of the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series; 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 the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park with the understanding that it must be used to assist in funding the Recreation Division’s Summer Concert Series. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Parktacular Inc. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Parktacular Inc. for their Annual Parktacular Celebration Block Party to be held June 19, 2015, at the Town Green located at Excelsior and Grand, 3815 Grand Way in St Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the Annual Parktacular Inc. Celebration held at the Town Green located at Excelsior and Grand on June 19, 2015? BACKGROUND: The Parktacular 2015 Community Celebration will be held June 18 - June 21. Parktacular, Inc., 3700 Monterey Drive, has made an application for a temporary on sale liquor license for the Parktacular Block Party Event scheduled for Friday, June 19 at the Excelsior & Grand Town Green. Liquor in the form of wine and beer will be available during the hours of 6:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. The outdoor concert entertainment will be provided by R Factor who will perform from 6:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Free parking is available in the Excelsior and Grand Ramps and The Rec Center parking lot. The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the main principals and has found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for issuance of the license and staff is recommending approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fee for a temporary liquor license is $100 per day of the event which is funded by Parktacular, Inc. VISION CONSIDERATION: The annual Parktacular Street Community Event supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community by increasing use of existing gathering places. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Map Prepared by: Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor – Operations and Recreation Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Temporary Liquor License – Parktacular Inc. DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The 2015 Parktacular Event is an annual celebration with many sponsors and volunteers promoting a spirit of pride, a sense of community and an atmosphere of celebration for all residents of the City of St. Louis Park. Various sponsors and Discover St Louis Park have donated funds to Parktacular to sponsor the Block Party which includes entertainment, food, and beverages. Per State Statute 340A.404, Subd. 10, a temporary on-sale liquor license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full-year on- sale intoxicating liquor license issued by any municipality. Parktacular has contracted with the St Louis Park American Legion, Frank H. Lundberg, MN Post 282, who currently holds a State Intoxicating Liquor License. The alcohol will be provided at the event during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. to anyone 21 years of age and older. The American Legion, Frank H. Lundberg, MN Post 282, will be coordinating and providing staff required to check ID’s and wrist bands to ensure no alcohol will be sold to minors. Police officers will also be on duty at the event. Per City Code Section 3-33, no person shall possess open containers of alcoholic beverages or consume any alcohol beverages on public streets, public parking lots, or on private property generally open to the public unless possession or consumption is during a specific event on such property which is approved by the City. Attached is a map of the Excelsior and Grand Town Green showing the fenced off premises area for the Block Party where liquor will be allowed. The required certificate of liquor liability insurance to cover the event will be submitted to the Parktacular Board and the city Liaison. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The Block Party Event is free this year and many volunteers will be monitoring crowd control along with a “dump bucket” at each entrance/exit. After the 11:00 p.m. closing time of the Block Party, the area will be cleaned. St. Louis Park Police Department has indicated there have been no incidences reported stemming from the previous block parties. NEXT STEPS: After City Council approval of Temporary Liquor License applications, the State application is submitted to the Alcohol Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for final approval. PARKTACULAR BLOCK PARTY JUNE 19th 2015 Alcohol permitted only in the fenced area Lion s C lub Food Sa le s& Ame r ican Leg ion L iquo r Sa le s Stage City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Title: Temporary Liquor License – Parktacular Inc.Page 3 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Heilicher Minneapolis Jewish Day School RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Heilicher Minneapolis Jewish Day School for an event to be held on May 12, 2015, at the Sabes Jewish Community Center, 4330 Cedar Lake Road in St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Heilicher Minneapolis Jewish Day School for their non-profit event being held at the Sabes Jewish Community Center on May 12, 2015? SUMMARY: The Heilicher Minneapolis Jewish Day School has applied for a Temporary Liquor License for the 6:00 pm reception prior to their Annual Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 12, at the Sabes Jewish Community Center at 4330 Cedar Lake Road. The mission of HMJDS is to provide a positive environment focused on a strong academic foundation in Jewish and General Studies. The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the principals and has found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for issuance of the license, and staff is recommending approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fee for a temporary liquor license is $100.00 per day of the event. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC. This action requires a similar approval by the EDA. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC is in the best interest of the City and its residents? SUMMARY: In December 2014, the EDA and City approved the Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, the City, Duke Realty LP, and Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). At that time, the parties agreed that CPW would acquire the undeveloped 14 acres of The West End redevelopment property (the “Property”), and that up to six additional phases of construction would replace the phases agreed to in the original Contract. Central Park West Phases I and II are to consist of multifamily housing, Phase III will be a hotel, and Phases IV and V will be Class A office buildings. CPW has informed Staff that the conveyance of the Property is scheduled for late April 2015. At that time, Duke will convey the Property to CPW. CPW will then simultaneously convey the Phase III (hotel) property to Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC (“Regalia”) and will execute an Assignment and Assumption of Contract (“Assignment”) with Regalia. The Majority Member of Regalia is Ruslan Krivoruchko who is the owner of DLC Residential (the entity behind Central Park West). Under the Assignment, Regalia will assume all of the obligations of CPW related to the Phase III property and construction of the hotel. Because Regalia and CPW are technically unrelated entities, the Contract requires that the EDA and City consent to this Assignment. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Assignment and Assumption and recommends the EDA and City approve and consent to these documents. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Regalia Suites assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Central Park West, LLC under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to the Phase III (hotel) property. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis RESOLUTION NO.15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC AND REGALIA SUITES OF MINNEAPOLIS, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis, Minnesota ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District, which has been assigned in part to Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). 1.03. CPW now proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract (the “Subject Property”) to Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to construct the hotel phase of development, defined in the Contract as Central Park West Phase III, on the Subject Property. In connection with such conveyance, CPW seeks to assign certain obligations of CPW related to the Subject Property to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between CPW and Assignee (the “Assignment”). 1.04. The Council 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. Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent thereto, as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the Consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City, the Consent attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the City in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest City Clerk Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the ____ day of April, 2015, is made and entered into by and between Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignor”), and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Duke”), the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) entered into that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 recorded August 20, 2010, as Document No. 4781478 (the “Contract”), and that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 21, 2011, recorded December 28, 2011, as Document No. 4913709 (the “First Amendment”); and WHEREAS, contemporaneously herewith, Duke, Assignor, the City and the Authority entered into that certain Second Amendment to the Contract dated ____, 20__ recorded ______, 2015, as Document No. _____________(the “Second Amendment” and, together with the Contract and the First Amendment, the “Redevelopment Contract”), and in connection with the execution of the Second Amendment, Duke assigned certain obligations under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract dated ______________, 2015 (the “First Assignment”); WHEREAS, the Second Amendment and the First Assignment are made and entered into to fulfill certain obligations of Duke and DLC Residential, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, wholly owned by Ruslan Krivoruchko (“DLC”), under that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 20, 2013, for certain real property described in the Contract, and to be platted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, and Outlot A, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 (the “Land”); WHEREAS, DLC is contemporaneously herewith assigning its interest to purchase the Land to Assignor; WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying that portion of the Land legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 (the “Subject Property”) to Assignee; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property consists of a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract and a portion of the real property defined as the Golden Valley Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract with regard to the Subject Property prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, (collectively, the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is in good standing, and has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Sections 3.1(c) and 3.2, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (c) Section 3.3 to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (d) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), all to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (e) Article IV, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property (f) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to the Subject Property; Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis (g) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (h) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to the Subject Property; (i) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of the Subject Property as contemplated in Section 8.2(b), (c) and (d); (j) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and (k) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 455-0336 Telecopy: (305) 816-6331 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A.. Attn: David L. Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ASSIGNOR: CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By Central Park West Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Sole Member By Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, its Managing Member By:_________________________ Ruslan Krivorchko Its: Managing Member STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF )) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2015, by Ruslan Krivorchko, the Managing Member of Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Managing Member of Central Park West Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Sole Member of Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ASSIGNEE: REGALIA SUITES OF MINNEAPOLIS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: __________________________ Ruslan Krivoruchko Its: Managing Member STATE OF ________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by ______________________________ of Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI) US Bank Plaza, Suite 470 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis CONSENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”) , and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; and (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption (iv) if the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: Regalia Suites of Minneapolis, LLC Attn: Russ Krivor 21500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 402 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 455-0336 Telecopy: (305) 816-6331 With copy to: Messerli & Kramer, P.A.. Attn: David L. Weigman, Esq. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 672-3610 Telecopy: (612) 672-3777 or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of April, 2015. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2014, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West and Regalia Suites of Minneapolis ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4g EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC (The Excelsior Group) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC . This action requires a similar approval by the EDA. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Central Park West, LLC, and OP4 SLP, LLC (The Excelsior Group) is in the best interest of the City and its residents? SUMMARY: In December 2014, the EDA and City approved the Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) between the EDA, the City, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). At that time, the parties agreed that CPW would acquire the undeveloped 14 acres of The West End redevelopment property (the “Property”), and that up to six additional phases of construction would replace the phases agreed to in the original Contract. Central Park West Phases I and II are to consist of multifamily housing, Phase III will be a hotel, and Phases IV and V will be Class A office buildings. CPW has informed Staff that the conveyance of the Property is scheduled for late April 2015. At that time, Duke will convey the Property to CPW. CPW will then simultaneously convey the Phases IV and V Property to The Excelsior Group (developers of West End Flats and recent purchasers of The Parkdales office complex) under the name OP4 SLP, LLC (“OP4”). The parties will also execute an Assignment under which OP4 will ultimately assume all of the obligations of CPW related to the Phases IV and V Property and construction of the office buildings. Because CPW and OP4 are unrelated entities, the EDA and City must consent to both of this Assignment. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed Assignment and Assumption and recommends the EDA and City approve and consent to these documents. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, OP4 SLP, LLC assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Central Park West, LLC under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to Phases IV and V (the office property) of Central Park West. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN CENTRAL PARK WEST, LLC AND OP4 SLP, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis, Minnesota ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010, as amended (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District, which has been assigned in part to Central Park West, LLC (“CPW”). 1.03. CPW now proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract (the “Subject Property”) to OP4 SLP, LLC (the “Assignee”), and the Assignee intends to construct the office phases of development, defined in the Contract as Central Park West Phase IV and Central Park West Phase V, on the Subject Property. In connection with such conveyance, CPW seeks to assign certain obligations of CPW related to the Subject Property to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between CPW and Assignee (the “Assignment”). 1.04. The Council 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. Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent thereto, as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the Consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City, the Consent attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the City in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest City Clerk City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the ___ day of April, 2015, is made and entered into by and between Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignor”), and OP4 SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee certain of Assignor’s obligations under that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010, recorded August 20, 2010, as Document No. 4781478 (the “Contract”), and that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 21, 2011, recorded December 28, 2011, as Document No. 4913709 (the “First Amendment”) and that certain Second Amendment to Amended Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated December 15, 2014, recorded ___________________, 2015, as Document No. ______________ (the “Second Amendment” and together with the Contract, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, the “Redevelopment Contract”) by and among Assignor, Duke Realty Limited Partnership, the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying certain real property, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Subject Property”), to Assignee pursuant to that certain Purchase Agreement dated March 25, 2015, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Assignor and Assignee; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property consists of a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract and the real property defined as the Golden Valley Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 4 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract with regard to the Subject Property prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date (collectively, the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is in good standing, and has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Section 3.2, only if such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (c) Section 3.3, only if such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (d) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), only to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 5 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC (e) Article IV, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property (f) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to the Subject Property; (g) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; (h) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to the Subject Property; (i) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of the Subject Property as contemplated in Section 8.2(b), (c) and (d); (j) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and (k) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations from and after the Transfer Date. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 6 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: OP4 SLP, LLC c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Joe Boone With copy to: Stinson Leonard Street LLP 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Gina Fox and Andy Lee or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 7 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Central Park West Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Sole Member By: Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, its Managing Member By:_________________________ Ruslan Krivorchko, its Mamaging Member STATE OF ______________) ) ss. COUNTY OF____________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2015, by Ruslan Krivorchko, the Managing Member of Providian Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Managing Member of Central Park West Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Sole Member of Central Park West, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. Notary Public City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 8 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC ASSIGNEE: OP4 SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: ____________________________ Printed: ___________________ Title: _____________________ STATE OF ________________) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2015, by ______________________________, the __________________________ of OP4 SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI) US Bank Plaza, Suite 470 200 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 9 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC Exhibit A SUBJECT PROPERTY Outlot A, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121, Hennepin County, Minnesota. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 10 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC CONSENT, ESTOPPEL AND AGREEMENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”), and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption; (iv) warrant, represent and certify to the Assignee as follows: (A) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (B) There is no Event of Default in existence, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. City and the Authority further covenant and agree to and for the benefit of the Assignee as follows: (C) City and the Authority will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption) unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. City and the Authority will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee, unless such termination does not affect the rights and interests of the Assignee. (D) If an Event of Default (as defined in the Redevelopment Contract) occurs, and such Event of Default does not relate to the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), City and the Authority may not and will not exercise their rights and remedies under the Redevelopment Contract arising or existing by reason of such Event of Default with respect to the Assignee or the Subject Property. (E) If the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 11 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC OP4 SLP, LLC c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Joe Boone With copy to: Stinson Leonard Street LLP 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Gina Fox and Andy Lee or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 12 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent, Estoppel and Agreement to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of April, 2015. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 13 Title: Assignment & Assumption of Redevelopment Contract - Central Park West, LLC and OP4 SLP, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of April, 2015, by Anne Mavity and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 4h OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 25, 2015 – 6:10 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of February 4, 2015 Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Johnston- Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1 (Carper abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit – Excavation for new home Location: 4106 Forest Lane Applicant: Timothy Alt, ALTUS Architecture & Design Case No.: 15-02-CUP Gary Mo rrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested to export approximately 816 cubic yards of fill which is required for the construction of a new house. He explained that the property is a vacant parcel with a significant grade change and the CUP is required to excavate enough soil from the hillside to construct the house. Mr. Morrison noted that an erosion control plan was reviewed by the Engineering Dept. That plan is also under review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Mr. Morrison reviewed the trucking haul route. Hauling will take approximately 5 days. Mr. Morrison stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on February 14th. No concerns were raised at the meeting. Commissioner Carper spoke about Condition No. 4.c. regarding street maintenance during grading and stormwater construction. He discussed the importance of compliance with this condition. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2015 Chair Person opened the hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson stated that applicant did a good job of removing a minimal amount of soil to achieve a very good design. He said it will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Carper said he likes the design of the home. He said he is pleased to see that trees will be kept on the lot. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to export approximately 816 cubic yards of fill. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0. 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. A study session followed at 6:25 p.m. Study topics were updates on Southwest LRT, Form-Based Code and south side of Excelsior Blvd. Design Guidelines. Submitted by, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Minutes: 4i OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 4, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Ryan Kelley, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: None 3. Public Hearings: None 4. Other Business A. Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development Location: West End – 1511 Utica Ave. S. Applicant: DLC Residential Case Nos.: 14-23-S and 14-24-PUD Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the proposed development is part of the larger West End redevelopment area. Five buildings are proposed for construction. Mr. Walther spoke about the findings of the updated Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR). Mr. Walther discussed the proposed reconstruction of Utica Ave., which would accommodate future traffic generated, especially from the office development. Mr. Walther provided an analysis of the Final Plat and Final PUD. David Graham, ESG Architects, presented highlights of the development. Commissioner Peilen asked about amenities planned for the residential units. Mr. Graham responded that interior finishes will be high end. Commissioner Peilen asked about guest parking. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 4, 2015 Mr. Graham said there will be some short-term parking and guest parking which is secured and accessible. Commissioner Tatalovich asked about sustainability features of the buildings. Mr. Graham responded that ESG Architects’ spec is a full green spec. He said he is LEED certified and as a company policy all of their buildings use low VOC paints, finishes and carpeting. There will be extra insulation on the perimeter of the building with the new energy code. They will harvest the stormwater, treat it and use it for irrigation. Mr. Graham said they will definitely hit the checklist to make the development as energy efficient as possible. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that she likes the project very much. Commissioner Robertson said the developer continues to bring excellent work to the city. Chair Person asked about the tree requirement and the caliper inch requirement. Mr. Walther said the caliper inch requirement falls within the tree replacement requirement. The developer is required to replace trees removed at a certain formula designated in the ordinance. The number of trees planted will meet that tree replacement. He added that the landscaping requirement varies on the type of development, either based on the number of units in a residential project or the square footage of a particular building or the perimeter of the site. He said the ordinance anticipates that there are alternative landscaping opportunities with denser developments. Commissioner Robertson asked about phasing for the linear park and the developments to the south. Mr. Graham responded that Phase I will be a residential building, the central park and the Utica reconstruction. He said there will be a build-to line on the south edge of the park which will allow the office building to be built and the façade will be back about 20 feet. The barrier will minimally, or not at all, affect the park. Chair Person asked about bus stops. Mr. Walther explained that the area is served by three different bus routes: the 9, 649 and 604. The 9 and the 649 will probably be rerouted down 16th St. to Utica and then up to Wayzata Blvd. in order to better serve residents and employees in the area. He said the 604 is a circulator bus. This area would be the end of the line for the 604 before it turns around. Discussions were held with Metro Transit about doing a turnaround at 16th St. but that turned out to be impactful to green space and traffic. The 604 will follow Utica to Gamble or Utica to Wayzata Blvd. and make an efficient loop through the area instead of a U-turn at the 16th and Utica intersection. Chair Person asked if there would be any bus layovers. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 4, 2015 Mr. Walther stated that there is a layover location provided on 16th St. Shops at West End provided two shelters and layover for two buses. Chair Person asked about how the new state energy code would impact the proposed development. Mr. Graham replied that new code for the exterior envelope of the buildings requires insulation on the outside of the sheeting. The thermal break is on the outside that covers metal or wood studs so the cold isn’t conducted through the structural elements. Mr. Graham said code for windows has already been at a higher standard. He added that there are no new requirements for lighting but lamps and fixtures used now are very efficient. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat subject to the conditions recommended by staff. He made a second motion to recommend approval of the Central Park West Final Planned Unit Development and requested modifications subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnston- Madison made a motion seconding the two motions, and the motions passed on a vote of 5-0. 5. Communications Mr. Walther said the March 18th meeting will probably be cancelled. A meeting will be held on April 1st. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4j MINUTES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 4, 2015 Community Room, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Terry Gips, Rachel Harris, Paul Zeigle, Cindy Larson O’Neil, Judy Voigt, Chris Anderson, Nancy Rose and Karen Laumb EXCUSED ABSENCE: Renee McGarvey, Alex Sundvall and Mark Eilers STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Elkin and Brian Hoffman GUESTS: Kristen Fornes, SoCore Energy, and Mark Brinkman 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. 2. The minutes of the March 4, 2015, meeting were approved unanimously. 3. Chairperson Gips opened the meeting, thanking his fellow commissioners for electing him Chairperson; Rachel Harris for her accomplishments as the former Chairperson; and the introduction of new commissioner Paul Zeigle. 4. Guest Presenter – Brian Hoffman, Director and Chief Building Inspector for the City, introduced the subject of solar gardens and the guest speaker Kristen Fornes of SoCore Energy. Previous submittals by solar energy groups were for the City to host a solar garden on the rooftop of a municipal building. Kristen presented SoCore’s proposal to build solar gardens outside of the metro area and sell energy subscriptions to solar power to the City. Brian emphasized the City’s interest in this proposal was that it did not involve a capital project. The City could benefit from the use of solar, but Brian emphasized that he wanted to use the ESC expertise to make a decision. When asked what the next steps were, Brian asked the commission, “Is this worth pursuing?” and if so, “How does the commission see this moving forward? “ It was recommended that the idea be submitted to the Energy Work Group to work with staff to make a recommendation to the full commission. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending that this commission use City staff to work with the Energy Work Group to explore being a subscriber with SoCore or another solar energy company. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Griffin amended the motion to “think about the sustainability – what are we trying to accomplish?” Not to limit energy to solar. Chairperson Gips added “community solar and other solar options.” The motion passed unanimously. 5. 2015 Goals and Commission Vision Statement Chairperson Gips introduced the subject of the 2015 goals, offering that the summaries from work groups did not allow enough face time to discuss the work plan. He offered City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2015 two options: 1) Delay presentation to Council until after the April meeting or 2) Consider a second meeting in April or March or set up a conference call to talk through the issues. He would like to give the commission an opportunity to “beef up the plan.” After discussion, it was agreed that all of the work groups would submit a one paragraph summary to Phil for inclusion in the annual submittal to Council for the March 23 Study Session. Chairperson Gips emphasized that he wanted to meet the April 1 deadline for submitting a work plan but did not want to go to the Council until the commission was ready. Commissioner Harris asked, “What is the commitment from each group that will allow us to make corrections in time?” After discussion, it was agreed that work group leaders would each submit a summary paragraph of the 2015 Work Plan to Phil by Tuesday. Phil would then distribute copies to everyone, who would return any comments to Phil by Friday. Phil emphasized the need to submit a completed agenda item by noon on March 18, setting a drop deadline time of 10:00 on Wednesday the 18th. Chairperson Gips made a motion to discuss and approve detailed work plans in April. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 6. Communications - Phil gave the commissioners an update on the search for an Environment and Sustainability Coordinator. The City received 147 applications for the newly created position and would start screening applications this week. Based on the number of applicants, HR anticipated several levels of interviews. Phil also reminded the commissioners of the upcoming removal of the Minnetonka Bridge as part of the Hwy. 100 construction project. Chairperson Gips requested that name plaques be created for commissioners to identify them during upcoming meetings. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Thien’s, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor – Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to deny application from Thien’s, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor, for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License located at 6316 Minnetonka Boulevard. If the Council denies the application, the motion should also direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution outlining the written findings of fact and reasons for denying the application pursuant to M.S. 364.05 for consideration at the May 4th Council Meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Based on the findings of the background investigation, does the Council feel the applicant meets the criteria necessary for approval of an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License? SUMMARY: The City received an application from Thien’s Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor, for an Off-Sale Liquor License for the premises located at 6316 Minnetonka Boulevard, an existing off-sale liquor establishment. Thien Van Tran previously served as the manager at the existing business and is now attempting to purchase the business to become the sole owner. The Police Department conducted a full background investigation. Several concerns were noted in the findings of the investigation, including this applicant’s history of liquor violations related to selling alcohol to a minor, including one conviction within the last five (5) years: 2005 Selling to Minor St. Louis Park location 2008 Selling to Minor Brooklyn Park location 2013 Selling to Minor St. Louis Park location Due to the nature of the violations, and with 2013 being the most recent incident, staff does not feel that the applicant meets the requirements for approval of a liquor license pursuant to City Code Sec. 3-70 and M.S. 340A.402. The application and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s Office, should Councilmembers wish to review the information. The required notice of the public hearing was published April 9, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 (non- refundable) for the police background investigation and $380 annually for the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: St. Louis Park City Code Sec. 3-70 Minnesota Statutes 340A.402 & 364.05 Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Nancy Deno , HR Director/Deputy City Manager City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Thien’s, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor – Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License St. Louis Park City Code Sec. 3-70. Ineligibility. (a) No license under this division shall be issued to or held by any person who: (1) Is made ineligible by state law; (2) Is under 21 years of age; (3) Is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; (4) Has had a liquor license revoked within five years of the license application, or who, at the time of the violation, owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; (5) Is not of good moral character and repute; (6) Has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer or wholesaler; or (7) Within five years of the license application, has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution or possession for sale or distribution of an alcoholic beverage, and who cannot show competent evidence under M.S.A. § 364.03 of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a licensee. City Council Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Title: Thien’s, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor – Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Minnesota Statutes 340A.402 PERSONS ELIGIBLE. Subdivision 1.Disqualifiers. No retail license may be issued to: (1) a person under 21 years of age; (2) a person who has had an intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license revoked within five years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; (3) a person not of good moral character and repute; or (4) a person who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer, or wholesaler. In addition, no new retail license may be issued to, and the governing body of a municipality may refuse to renew the license of, a person who, within five years of the license application, has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcoholic beverage. The Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division or licensing authority may require that fingerprints be taken and forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of a criminal history check 364.05 NOTIFICATION UPON DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT OR DISQUALIFICATION FROM OCCUPATION. If a hiring or licensing authority denies an individual a position of public employment or disqualifies the individual from pursuing, practicing, or engaging in any occupation for which a license is required, solely or in part because of the individual's prior conviction of a crime, the hiring or licensing authority shall notify the individual in writing of the following: (1) the grounds and reasons for the denial or disqualification; (2) the applicable complaint and grievance procedure as set forth in section 364.06; (3) the earliest date the person may reapply for a position of public employment or a license; and (4) that all competent evidence of rehabilitation presented will be considered upon reapplication. Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: April 20, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What other information would Council like to review regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licensing? Is the Council ready to take action on this matter? SUMMARY: On January 12, 2015, Council had a discussion on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and locations. It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution imposing a limit on off-sale liquor licenses to allow time to study this topic. On January 20, 2015, Council adopted a resolution limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses that applied to all pending and future applications with an expiration date of December 31, 2015. At the discussion this evening, staff will present data on this topic as follows: • Map of business locations and zoning regulations. • Licensing concepts - new category such as accessory to grocery. • Information on current establishment size. • Discussion regarding distance between liquor stores. City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts within the City. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Survey Results Map of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Off-Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off-sale liquor license categories in St. Louis Park. Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off-sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off-sale licenses include 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of the number of off-sale licenses issued since 2000: YEAR Off-Sale Intox (liquor stores) Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor (grocery stores) Off-Sale Brewery (growlers) TOTAL Off-Sale Licenses 2014 16 3 2 21 2013 15 3 2 20 2012 14 3 2 19 2011 14 4 2 20 2010 13 3 1 17 2009 12 3 1 15 2008 11 3 1 14 2007 13 3 16 2006 10 2 12 2005 10 2 12 2004 9 3 12 2003 9 4 13 2002 9 4 13 2001 9 4 13 2000 7 4 11 Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statute 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations for off-sale licenses. Are there limits set by the State of Minnesota on the number of liquor licensed establishments? No. Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the City Council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city. Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion What are the current regulations relating to intoxicating liquor locations for the City? • City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship. (Adopted June 2007) • Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states liquor stores are allowed in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district by Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: The liquor store must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. (Adopted November 2013) Comment: Currency exchange and payday loan businesses are licensed by MN State Department of Commerce. The City of St. Louis Park does not have any licensed classifications of currency exchange or payday loan through the State Department of Commerce at this time. • In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. (Adopted November 2013) What is the current square footage of our off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensed Establishments Address Development, Mall or Shopping area Premises CURRENT Approx Sq Ft Liquor Violations past 5 years Year Business Began Total Years in business Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 6,000 0 1979 36 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St West End 3,884 0 2001 14 Four Firkins-Lagers Ales Wines 5630 West 36th Street Harmony Vista Shopping Center 1,800 1 (2012)2008 7 Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 2 (2011, 2013)1946 69 Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A Knollwood Mall 5,367 1 (2013)1967 48 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd Miracle Mile 4,500 1 (2011)2005 9 Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd Park Place Plaza West End 9,000 1 (2013)2012 3 MGM 8100 Highway 7 Knollwood Mall 8,891 0 Nov 2014 less than 1 Sam's Club 3745 Louisiana 10,560 0 1986 29 Supervalu CUB liquor store 5370 16th Street W West End 3,400 0 2009 6 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka BlvdMinnetonka Park Mall 1,200 2 (2013, 2014)2001 14 Target Liquor Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 near Knollwood Mall 1,850 0 2015 less than 1 Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4,772 1 (2011)1962 53 Trader Joe’s #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior & Grand 2,600 0 2006 10 Vintage Wine & Spiritz 8942 Highway 7 Knollwood Village 2,800 0 2006 10 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S 4,100 0 1963 52 Liquor Stores CLOSED Napa Jacks 4200 Mtka Blvd wine store 3,800 0 May-Dec 2006 8 mos Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd Excelsior & Grand 1,795 0 2006 - 2008 1.5 Cedar Lake Wine & Spirits 5330 Cedar Lake Rd Cedar Point Business Complex West End 1,280 0 2012 - 2013 1 Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion Is there any comment from the Police Department on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores? The Police Department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety. Why are there a number of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments outside of the C2 Zoning District? The “Liquor Store” land use designation was created in 2013, and is allowed only in the C-2 Zoning District. Prior to 2013, liquor stores were considered “Retail” and were allowed in any zoning district where retail was allowed. As a result of the 2013 zoning change, liquor stores that existed in zoning districts other than the C-2 District became legally non-conforming (grandfathered). Can we add additional licensing categories for liquor? The State of Minnesota regulates liquor licensing by statute under Chapter 340A Liquor. We contacted the State of MN on adding additional license categories. The State of MN will issue a license based on categories listed in the statute. We were informed that if a city wants to break out a classification for licensing purposes they can do so, and the State of MN would continue to recognize them only as categories in the statues. For example, if the City issued the licenses below, the State of MN would continue to recognize them as off-sale intoxicating liquor, and the City could further define their license as follows: • Off-Sale Intoxicating – Class A  City of St. Louis Park off-sale intoxicating liquor license. • Accessory to Grocery – Class B  New category of off-sale intoxicating liquor with adjacent grocer same company, licenses for liquor stores that are ancillary or accessory to a retail food use. The following six establishments hold intoxicating liquor off-sale licenses and in concept would meet this definition: Byerlys, Cub West End, Costco, Sam’s Club, Trader Joes and Target Knollwood (license approved, not in operation). • Limited Beer/Wine – Class C  New category of off-sale intoxicating liquor for St. Louis Park limited to beer and wine (further definition needed in this category; for instance, not allowing spirited wine). Why would we consider adding different levels of licensing for off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses? This type of concept could be used if the Council would want to set limits on off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. For example, Council could set a limit of Class A (free standing off- sale intoxicating liquor licenses) and allow different levels or no limit on Class B or C. What are the number of establishments and other requirements in other cities? Attached is a listing of this information. Over the past year, the City of Burnsville has been researching this topic. Currently they have limits on number of off-sale licenses. Staff contacted the City of Burnsville, and per public input and Council discussion, their staff is drafting an amendment to the city’s liquor ordinance that would remove the city’s current cap on the number of off-sale liquor licenses it issues. The proposed amendment is tentatively scheduled for discussion at their Economic Development Commission on May 13 and scheduled for adoption by their City Council on June 2. Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion Can we add language in our code to provide a minimum separation between intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments? Yes. First we would need to know what type of separation is desired and if this is allowed under law. Also, a definition would need to be created on distance limitations. Can we add language in code to limit the size of an intoxicating liquor establishment? Yes. A definition would need to be created on size limit. The chart on page three lists the approximate square footage of the licensed establishments. Next Steps At the City Council Study Session on April 20, 2015, we want to allow time for discussion to determine if we have a problem with our current regulations regarding off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. To do this, we will review data in the report and discuss the following: • Is there any additional information needed? • Does the C2 zoning that was put in place in 2013 along with other zoning requirements provide adequate regulation? • Are there any changes that Council would like to implement? • If there is no additional information requested or further study needed, does the Council want to remove the temporary limit on off-sale intoxicating liquor stores set by resolution on January 20, 2015? CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Other limitations Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental entity or organization operating the school or church Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft. Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments. St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50% Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service. Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 population. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to report sales. Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000 Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the "Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in 2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of Westburn first addition. Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually. Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations. Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations. Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches. 2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion Page 6 CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Other limitations Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects 2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion Page 7 Excelsior Bl v d Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveWo o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lake R d 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 116 15 14 13 12 11 10 On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments Liquor Establishments Off Sale Intox (16) On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) Off Sale 3.2 (3) Places of Worship Private/Public Schools Fire Arm Sales Pawn Shop C2 Zoning District March 2015 # Establishment # Establishment1 Byerly's-St. Louis Park 9 MGM Wine & Spirits2 Costco Wholesale #377 10 Sam's Club #63183 Cub Liquor 11 St. Louis Park Liquor4 Four Firkins 12 Texas-Tonka Liquor5 Jennings' Liquor Store 13 Trader Joe's #7106 Knollwood Liquor 14 Vintage Wine & Spiritz7 Liquor Barrel 15 Westwood Liquors8 Liquor Boy 16 Target Special Study Session Meeting of April 20, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Discussion Page 8