HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/05/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA
MAY 5, 2014
6:00 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEW – Westwood Room
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:15 p.m. Southwest LRT Preliminary Design Plans - Continued Discussion
7:20 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 7, 2014
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. Authorization to Submit Cleanup Grant Application Related to the Former Nestlé
(Novartis) Plant
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the EDA
Executive Director and President to submit an application to the Metropolitan Council’s
Tax Base Revitalization Account Program on behalf of Hillcrest Development.
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Planning Commissioner Dennis Morris
2b. Communication of Donation Appreciation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes April 7, 2014
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes April 7, 2014
3c. Special Study Session Minutes April 21, 2014
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes April 21, 2014
Meeting of May 5, 2014
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.
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 -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for St. Louis Park School District #283 (ISD 283) for an addition to
Aquila Elementary, with conditions as recommended by staff.
8b. Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for St. Louis Park School District #283 (ISD 283) for
an addition to Peter Hobart Elementary, with conditions as recommended by staff.
8c. Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for St. Louis Park School District #283 (ISD 283) for an addition to Susan
Lindgren Elementary, with conditions as recommended by staff.
8d. Business Park Rezoning of Properties Near Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave. S., Wooddale Ave.
S., and Belt Line Blvd.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance to
rezone 41 properties for Business Park zoning and approve summary ordinance for
publication.
9. Communications -- None
Immediately following City Council Meeting
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Continued – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
2. 20 minutes Update on Community Center Project
3. 60 minutes Review of City’s Housing Goals
Meeting of May 5, 2014
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve the 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants.
4b. Designate Allied Blacktop Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $222,695.98 for Street
Maintenance Project (Sealcoat Streets - Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206).
4c. Adopt Resolution to disburse remaining Cedar Trails HIA Project Fund Balance of
$16,092 to the Cedar Trails Association’s replacement reserve fund.
4d. Accept for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes March 14, 2014.
4e. Adopt Resolution accepting a $1,000 Grant from the St. Louis Park Community
Foundation and Youth Development Fund.
4f. Adopt Resolution approving the cooperative construction agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the construction of a noise wall
along the east side of Highway 169 between 14th and 16th Street West – Project No.
2015-0100.
4g. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of March 29 through April
25, 2014.
4h. Accept for filing Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014.
4i. Accept for filing Environment and Sustainability Commission Minutes March 5, 2014.
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: May 5, 2014
Discussion Item: 1
TITLE: Southwest LRT Preliminary Design Plans - Continued Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Provide input to staff on the SWLRT Preliminary Design Plans
under consideration for Municipal Consent.
SUMMARY: At the April 28th City Council meeting the Council began its discussion and
review of the specifics of the Preliminary Design Plans in anticipation of preparing and adopting
a resolution regarding municipal consent in June. The focus was on the Louisiana Avenue and
Wooddale station areas. During Monday’s study session the discussion will continue and focus
on the Beltline Station area. The Preliminary Design Plans can be found at
www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/community-dev/swlrt_plans.pdf.
The focus of the discussion will be on acceptability of the basic elements of the Preliminary
Design Plans. Draft potential changes to those plans, potential Locally Requested Capital
Investments (“betterments”) and issues that need to be addressed in the next stage of design
development will be provided at the City Council meeting that evening. It is important to note
that the Preliminary Design Plans are developed to less than a 30% complete level and further
refinements and plan adjustments will occur with City input before the Final Design Plans are
completed. The Final Design stage of the SWLRT project is not anticipated to begin until the
second or third quarter of 2015. Much design work will need to be done before plans are even
ready to begin the Final Engineering.
On a related note, the deadline for Municipal Consent has been extended to July 14 due to the
need to submit corrected plans for the north Kenilworth Corridor portion of the SWLRT plans.
The Met Council/Hennepin County hearing has also been rescheduled to May 29 th. These
changes do not affect the date for our public hearing which is May 19th; however it does mean St.
Louis Park does not need to act on Municipal consent in June as originally planned. The City
Council can wait and act at the regularly scheduled meeting July 7th if desired.
NEXT STEPS:
• Public hearing with open house 1 hour prior – May 19
• Staff and Council continue to review base plans (ongoing)
• Preparation and discussion of a draft Municipal Consent Resolution
• Consideration of Municipal Consent Resolution – no later than July 7th.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: SLP Municipal Consent Plan Summary Table 2014
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
SLP Municipal Consent Plan Summary Table 2014 4-16-14
Base plan Elements Locally Requested Cap Inv
(Betterments)
Cost Other Issues Cost
Louisiana § North (Oxford) station
§ 286 car park & ride lot
§ Trail connection under tracks
from station to regional trail
and Sam’s Club area
South station location $18-23 m • Removal of South leg of
switching wye
• Better pedestrian connection
from station to Methodist
• Ownership & use of freight rail
South Connect property
• Oxford/Edgewood “hairpin”
curve
?
Wooddale § Station at Wooddale
§ No park & ride
§ Trail connection at-grade
§ Kiss & Ride drop-off on
Yosemite and Frontage Road
Trail underpass $3-3.5 m • LRT under Wooddale
• Shift station location East
• Xenwood underpass
• Xenwood at-grade crossing
• Fit with future development on
frontage road
$13.9 m
$21 m
$5 m?
Belt Line § 525 park & ride lot at Beltline
& CSAH 25
§ Trail at-grade crossing of
Beltline; crosses trains on
bridge to the east
§ New signalized access to CSAH
25 at Lynn Ave
Grade separation of Belt Line
Or
Trail bridge over Beltline
$18-23 m
$3.5-4 m
• Joint Development of park &
Ride lot
• Design of CSAH 25
• Design of access to park & ride
from CSAH 25
?
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 1)
Title: Southwest LRT Preliminary Design Plans - Continued Discussion Page 2
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 7, 2014
1. Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Gregg Lindberg, Susan Sanger,
and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: Jeff Jacobs and Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Community Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling) and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes March 3, 2014
The EDA minutes were approved as presented.
The motion passed 5-0.
4. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve
the EDA agenda as presented.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to approve
the EDA disbursements.
The motion passed 5-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business - None
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of EDA Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the
period of March 29 through April 25, 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in
accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA Bylaws?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to
review and approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the EDA’s Bylaws and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Disbursements
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:24:08R55CKS2 LOGIS400
1Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
58.85CENTERPOINT ENERGY 4601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION HEATING GAS
58.85
205.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,000.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,205.00
5,000.00FRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
5,000.00
525.00GALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES INC, ARTHURDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00
7,100.07HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3,328.04DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A RENT REVENUE
10,428.11
88.55KELLEY, RYAN DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
88.55
1,087.50LHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,087.50
3,000.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
3,000.00
5,000.00MCCDDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,000.00
26,000.00MYKLEBUST + SEARS PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
26,000.00
52,320.54ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB
52,320.54
3,200.00VALUATION GROUP INC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,200.00
74.66XCEL ENERGY 4601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION HEATING GAS
74.66
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 2
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 7:24:08R55CKS2 LOGIS400
2Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
Report Totals 110,988.21
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 3
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Authorization to Submit Cleanup Grant Application Related to the Former Nestlé
(Novartis) Plant
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the EDA
Executive Director and President to submit an application to the Metropolitan Council’s Tax
Base Revitalization Account Program on behalf of Hillcrest Development.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the submittal of a grant application to
the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account Program to assist with the
environmental clean-up of the former Nestlé (Novartis) Healthcare Nutrition plant located at
5320 23rd St W?
SUMMARY: Hillcrest Development has entered into an agreement to purchase the former
Nestlé manufacturing property at 5320 W 23rd St. and plans to close on the property in May.
Hillcrest intends to renovate and repurpose the majority of the plant (approximately 256,000
square feet) into a multi-tenant facility featuring large, leasable, industrial spaces.
During its due diligence, Hillcrest discovered asbestos–containing materials in all of the plant
buildings. To offset the cost of asbestos abatement, Hillcrest is asking the EDA to apply for a
$365,733 Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) grant on its behalf.
Environmental grants for contamination cleanup are awarded semi-annually from the
Metropolitan Council. Grant applications for this round are due in early May. Each grant requires
a resolution from the governing body of the city where the project site is located indicating that it
supports the project. A local match is not required for this funding source.
The City Council received a “Report” regarding this matter as part of its 4/28 study session
agenda packet.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There is no local matching fund
requirement for the TBRA contamination cleanup grants.
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: Discussion
EDA Resolution
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Planning and Economic Development Assistant
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, Executive Director
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Authorization to Submit Cleanup Grant Application Related to the Former Nestlé (Novartis) Plant
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Last December, Hillcrest Development entered into an option agreement to
purchase the 25-acre Nestle manufacturing property. It plans to convert a majority of the
312,000 square foot plant (11 total contiguous buildings and one stand-alone building) into a
multi-tenant facility with separate leasable industrial spaces.
In April, 2014, Braun Intertec Corporation conducted a Hazardous Building Material Evaluation
of the plant. Braun found asbestos-containing materials in all of the buildings. Specifically,
asbestos was detected in linoleum, sheetrock, floor tile, ceiling panels, window caulking, glazing
and panels, and fire doors. The confirmed abatement costs were determined to be $365,733. It
also determined that Building #3, which stands alone in the middle of the truck court area, should
be demolished due to substantial building code issues. Renovations of the contiguous buildings
and the removal of Building #3 will require abatement of asbestos containing materials and
environmental work.
Approximately 256,000 square feet of the contiguous buildings will be renovated and repurposed
to support various industrial uses (there is a large amount of unusable space in the tower that will
be not be leased). Construction plans include extensive interior demolition and reconstruction of
the remaining buildings, build-out of 5-15 tenant spaces, improved stormwater management,
parking lot improvements, and connection to the Cedar Lake regional trail.
Construction is scheduled to begin in July-August. Final build-out of tenant spaces will occur
immediately thereafter with potential occupancy in October. The site is actively being marketed
and negotiations with prospective tenants are currently in process. The types of uses likely to be
attracted to this renovated multi-tenant facility include low impact manufacturing, assembly,
research and development, offices, and office showroom. Renovation of the facility is expected
to create approximately 85 construction and cleanup jobs. Upon full occupancy this facility is
estimated to host approximately 200 new FTE positions.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Authorization to Submit Cleanup Grant Application Related to the Former Nestlé (Novartis) Plant
Grant Assistance
It was determined that the cost of abating the asbestos within the buildings ($365,733) is eligible
for a Contamination Cleanup Grant through the Metropolitan Council’s TBRA Program.
Submitting such an application would be of mutual benefit to both the Redeveloper and the EDA.
The TBRA Program provides funds to investigate and clean up polluted land, ground water or
hazardous materials in existing buildings for economic redevelopment projects that enhance a
municipality’s tax base while promoting job growth. Contamination cleanup grants are intended
for applicants to assist with the cost of implementing a cleanup plan and begin redevelopment.
TBRA Contamination Cleanup funds are awarded on a competitive basis to redevelopment
projects that will start within three years of receiving the grant award.
The Metropolitan Council requires an authorizing resolution from the governing body of the city
where the project site is located indicating that the city is supportive of the project. Grant awards
are typically announced in July.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Authorization to Submit Cleanup Grant Application Related to the Former Nestlé (Novartis) Plant
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT
ON BEHALF OF HILLCREST
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 2014 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is
therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has identified
a clean-up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization account's purposes and
criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the
institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies that it
will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority finds that the
required contamination cleanup will not occur through private or other public investment within
the reasonably foreseeable future without Tax Base Revitalization Account grant funding; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority agrees to act
as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization Account grant
application submitted on May 1, 2014;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the EDA President and Executive
Director are hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for a Tax Base
Revitalization Account grant on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the
applicant.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority , May 5, 2014
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Planning Commissioner Dennis Morris
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to recognize and present a Plaque of
Appreciation to Commissioner Dennis Morris to honor his 20 years of excellent service to the
City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Mr. Morris was scheduled for council recognition on April 7 and was unable to
attend. Therefore, this very important recognition was rescheduled for this evening.
Dennis Morris has served on the Planning Commission from 1993 - 2013. The Planning
Commission advises the City Council in matters concerning comprehensive planning, zoning,
platting, street changes, and general planning and development. The commission meets the first
and third Wednesday of each month.
Staff is requesting special council recognition of commissioners who have volunteered and
served over ten years to honor their past service to the community and recognize the contributions
they have made.
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: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Communication of Donation Appreciation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and give thanks and appreciation to the
following donations being accepted this evening:
From Amount For
St. Louis Park Community
Foundation & Youth
Development Fund
$1,000 Fire Dept. framing & installation of a memorial
piece of the I-35WW Bridge at Fire Station 1.
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 7, 2014
The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Tim Brausen (arrived at 7:05 p.m.),
Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
Guest: None
1. Task Force for South Side of Excelsior Boulevard Design Guidelines Process
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger confirmed that the Council would like to see a mix of residents, property
owners, and business owners appointed to the Task Force.
Councilmember Brausen arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Councilmember Mavity recommended the appointment of applicants Aimee Olson, Allison
Moehnke, Ben Stewart, Caitlin Goff, Graham Merry, Joe Tatalovich, June Petrie, Larry North,
Matt Stangl, Michael Edlavitch, Sam Bryson, Thia Bryan, and Bob Cunningham.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recommended the appointment of Claudia Johnston-Madison as well.
Councilmember Lindberg questioned if the two recommended members of the Planning
Commission (Claudia Johnston-Madison and Joe Tatalovich) should be on the Task Force.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the City has, in the past, allowed members of City Commissions to
participate in these types of groups. She believed that Claudia Johnston-Madison should still be
appointed because of her position on the homeowners association.
Councilmember Mavity believed strongly that members of the Planning Commission should not
participate in this group and suggested that Claudia Johnston-Madison and Joe Tatalovich should
be removed from the recommended applicants.
Councilmember Spano agreed that the Planning Commission would have an opportunity to
review and discuss this issue via that forum and did not believe that those individuals should be
given two platforms to provide comments.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger confirmed the consensus of the Council to remove the Planning
Commissioners (Claudia Johnston-Madison and Joe Tatalovich) from the recommended list of
applicants.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 7, 2014
Councilmember Mavity suggested adding Robb Bader to the recommended list.
Ms. McMonigal noted that staff did recruit some of the applicants to ensure that there was mix of
business and residential owners and so that there were representatives of property owners within
the study area. She reviewed the intention of the Task Force and noted that the applicants not
chosen could still participate in the overall public process.
Councilmember Spano suggested adding Maureen Fitzgerald and Robb Bader.
It was the consensus of the Council to support the appointment of applicants Aimee Olson,
Allison Moehnke, Ben Stewart, Caitlin Goff, Graham Merry, June Petrie, Larry North, Matt
Stangl, Michael Edlavitch, Sam Bryson, Thia Bryan, Bob Cunningham, Robb Bader, and
Maureen Fitzgerald.
2. Communications (verbal)
Mr. Harmening referenced a draft letter and questioned if the Council would approve mailing of
the letter and who should sign the letter.
Councilmember Spano provided background information and stated that he would be in
agreement with the Mayor signing the letter.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger confirmed that the letter should also be sent to the members of the
Metropolitan Council.
It was the consensus of the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter and direct staff to
mail the letter.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
3. Update on SWLRT Station Area Form-Based Code
4. Planning Commission 2013 Annual Report and 2014 Work Plan
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 7, 2014
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Tim Brausen, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Senior Engineering
Project Manager (Jack Sullivan), Engineering Director (Deb Heiser), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
Guests: None.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Commissioners Dennis Morris and Rick Dworsky
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed thanks to Dennis Morris and Rick Dworsky for their
contributions on City Commissions. She reported that Rick Dworsky has served on the
Telecommunications Commission for the past 14 years, holding the positions of Chair
and Vice Chair during that time. She thanked Mr. Dworsky for his service and presented
him with a plaque of recognition.
Mr. Dworsky stated that it has been an honor to serve the City and he looked forward to
the work the Commission will continue to do in his absence.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that Dennis Morris was not in attendance and recognition
could be given at a later time.
2b. Volunteer Appreciation Proclamation
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed appreciation to all who have volunteered their time to
the City during the past year and read aloud the Proclamation recognizing and thanking
those individuals. She encouraged those interested to contact the City to determine
volunteer opportunities.
2c. Communication of Donation Appreciation
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed the thanks of the City Council to resident Donna Hill
for her monetary donation towards the improvement of the nature center.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Workshop Minutes February 27-28, 2014
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special Study Session Minutes March 10, 2014
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special Study Session Minutes March 17, 2014
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes March 17, 2014
The minutes were approved as presented.
3e. Study Session Minutes March 24, 2014
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
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. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2452-14 amending Chapter 36
of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to definitions and allowing
anaerobic digesters in the I-G General Industrial zoning district by conditional use
permit, and to approve the summary ordinance for publication.
4b. Approve an extension until October 7, 2014 for Gatehouse Properties LLC to record
the final plat for Wooddale Flats.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 14-047 authorizing conveyance of a permanent easement to
MnDOT and Motion to Approve MnDOT “Zero Dollar Permit to Construct”.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 14-048 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $28,950.13 for the Traffic Signal Project at Park Center Boulevard at Park
Summit with Hardrives, Inc. – Project No. 2012-1306, Contract No. 100-12.
4e.
Adopt Resolution No. 14-049 authorizing final payment in the amount of $27,383.80
for Sanitary Sewer Project – Lift Station. #2 and Force Main Rehab – Project No.
2012-2300 with Magney Construction, Inc. - Project No. 2012-2300, City Contract
No. 18-13.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 14-050 authorizing final payment in the amount of $84,211.85
and accepting work for the City Hall First Floor Renovation project with Black and
Dew, LLC. Project No. 2009-1600, City Contract No. 46-13.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 14-051 Declaring the Official Intent of the City of St. Louis
Park to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by
the City
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 14-052 Consenting to and Approving the Issuance by the City
of New Hope, Minnesota of Revenue Obligations to Finance a Project Under MN
Statutes, Sections 469.152 Through 469.1655, as Amended; Approving and
Authorizing the Execution of a Cooperative Agreement; and Approving and
Authorizing Certain Actions Related Thereto for the benefit of Homeward Bound,
Inc.
4i. Approve a parking agreement with MSP Property Management (Louisiana Oaks
Apartments) to lease 20 parking spaces to accommodate overnight guests of Louisiana
Oaks apartment complex provided a permit is displayed on the vehicle.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 14-053 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from
Donna Hill in the amount of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
4k. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of February 22 through
March 28, 2014.
4l. Accept for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 26, 2013
4m. Accept for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 15, 2014
4n. Accept for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes February 3, 2014
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. Boards and Commissions.
5a. Appointment of Representative to the Community Education Advisory
Commission
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
Appoint Tim Brausen as a City Council Representative to the Community Education
Advisory Commission.
The motion passed 5-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – 2014 Connect the Parks! Project – Project No. 4014-0000
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger explained that the discussion tonight will include five sidewalk
segments and advised that she would like to take public comment in specific segments, in
order to better group the comments together.
Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report regarding 2014 Connect the Parks! and provided
written comments from residents who were not able to attend tonight’s meeting. He
reported that the City began this visioning process in 2007 with the intent to add ten miles
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
of sidewalk, 30 miles of bike lanes and bikeways, and three miles of trails within the next
ten years. He reviewed the sidewalk design considerations that were reviewed during the
process as well as the Right of Way (ROW) policy of the City; noting that replacement of
the above ground aspects would be the responsibility of the City while the replacement of
underground aspects would be the responsibility of the homeowner. He reported that
there are six segments of sidewalk proposed and described the specific design aspects for
each segment including the width of the sidewalk, any reduction to the roadway width,
City responsibility of snow removal, and whether on-street parking would be allowed.
He reviewed the estimated cost and funding as well as the project timeline, should the
direction be given to move forward tonight. He advised that the schedule proposes to
complete the segments closest to schools prior to the fall opening.
Councilmember Brausen questioned if the City owns the ROW in discussion. Mr.
Sullivan confirmed that the City does own the ROW for the project area with the
exception of a segment along Joppa, and noting that temporary construction easements
may be needed along certain segments.
Councilmember Brausen confirmed the City policy is that ROW is public land and the
City is willing to pay for the replacement of above ground items found within the ROW.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing and asked for comments on the
Louisiana Avenue and Oxford Street sidewalk segments.
Sara Bergen, 2939 Princeton, voiced her support for the Louisiana Avenue and Oxford
Street sidewalk segments.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked for comments regarding the Joppa Avenue segment.
Joshua Borenstein, Torah Academy, stated on behalf of the school, they would like to see
the sidewalk continued. He noted that the sidewalk would be a great amenity, which
would promote safety for the children that walk that way to school.
Tom Green, 2827 Joppa Avenue, spoke in representation of the residents along the east
side of Joppa Avenue. He stated that they are very anxious for this sidewalk connection
to occur, as it will provide connection to the nearby synagogues. He also believed that
the connection would be great for the students walking to Torah Academy.
Judy Shapiro spoke on behalf of the synagogue located at 2959 Joppa Avenue. She stated
that the synagogues support the sidewalk connection as well as the no parking along the
side of the roadway.
Uldis Kreslins, 2737 Quenton, also spoke in support of the project as he walks that route
with his children.
Erika Finkler, 2623 Huntington Avenue, stated in general she is in support of the program
and believes that the sidewalk connections will be beneficial to the community and the
foot traffic through the neighborhood.
Mark Fredrickson, 2851 Joppa Avenue, questioned if this process includes a curb cut at
the south end of the parking lot along the west side.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
Mr. Sullivan stated that Torah Academy has approached the City with the possibility of
reinstalling that curb cut. He advised that the option looks favorable but no decision has
been made. He advised that, if approved, the curb cut would be completed in conjunction
with this project but noted that Torah Academy would be financially responsible for the
curb cut.
Mr. Fredrickson stated when he purchased his property, he was told that there would be a
row of trees to provide screening and also believed that a curb cut would have a negative
impact on the flow of traffic in that area. He stated for that reason, he would be against
the curb cut option.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that a decision has not been made on the issue of a curb cut
and confirmed that Mr. Fredrickson would be willing to participate in the public
discussion process for that option. She then welcomed comments regarding the
Morningside Road segment.
Thomas Rehkamp, 4300 Browndale, spoke in support of Mr. Sullivan and the plan that
has been developed. He stated in speaking with his neighbors on the north side, there
was concern over which side the sidewalk would be located. He stated there has been
interest for some time to provide a connection for residents accessing the park and
believed that the combination of the sidewalk and no parking would be beneficial to the
neighborhood and would also have a calming impact on traffic.
Jenna Bjorgen, 4281 Ottawa Avenue South, stated her son travels from their home to his
friend’s home and uses Morningside Road, which currently does not have a sidewalk
connection. She expressed support for this connection and the safety that it will provide
to users of the park and residents of the neighborhood.
Ron Berry, 4100 Salem Avenue South, stated this is the third proposal for the sidewalk
connection and he has always spoken in opposition. He stated that while he still opposes
this segment, he does believe that this is the most reasonable plan the City has proposed.
He referenced the proposed six-foot width for the segment and believed that sidewalk
should be constructed with a width of four to five feet, similar to the existing segment to
which this will connect. He also suggested not completing the segment at all, as he is not
sure that sidewalks are the answer.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the sidewalk width is proposed at six feet for snow removal
purposes and for general walkability. He noted that each segment width was considered
based on the availability of ROW.
Councilmember Mavity questioned the impact a smaller width would have on the snow
removal process.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the equipment used for snow removal needs a certain width
for operational purposes. He also noted that the additional space would allow for snow
storage space from the roadway as well as the sidewalk.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger welcomed comments for the 41st Street segment.
Susan Erickson, 4122 Salem Avenue, stated that when the Connect the Park! process
began the previous fall; she collected a number of signatures in support of the sidewalk
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
segment along 41st Street. She stated there is widespread support and acknowledged need
for these segments. Ms. Erickson stated there are many children that are forced to walk
along the roadway without sidewalks at this time and she believed that these additional
segments will provide safety for the children and teach them proper roadway knowledge.
She expressed the positive benefits of walking that would be provided with the additional
connectivity and believed that sidewalks are not a luxury and are the key to vital city life,
for not only children but all residents.
Maria Waters, 4100 Utica Avenue, stated she purchased her home in 2001 and was
excited about the proposed sidewalk. She noted since that time, she has had two children
and referenced the dangerous conditions for her children who walk along 41st Street on
their way to school. She was in support of the sidewalk connection.
Larry Johnson, 3000 Highway 100 South #407, spoke in support of the sidewalk and
acknowledged the many benefits of sidewalks throughout all areas of the City.
James Ragen, 4517 Vallacher Avenue, stated his young children will attend the nearby
school and believed that it would be great to have the sidewalk connection for school
children.
Gloria Hiner, 4050 Wooddale, stated she was concerned with the narrowing of the street,
noting that the street was already narrow through the winter because of the amount of
snow received. She questioned the impact a narrower roadway would have.
Mr. Sullivan noted that the section near her home will not be narrowed but the remaining
street portion will be narrowed by 3.5 feet. He advised that targeted no parking could be
applied as well as increased snow efforts should those actions become necessary.
Councilmember Lindberg confirmed the current width of the roadway and the proposed
reduction.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the narrowing of the road was proposed to ensure that
resident driveway lengths would not be reduced too much and become usable.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger welcomed comments regarding the 39th Street segment.
Ted Ekkers, 4512 West 39th Street, voiced his support for the project noting that he has
two young children who will have to walk to the nearby school. He also believed there
would be benefit for users of the park.
Kristin Siegesmund 3905 Glenhurst, appreciated the work the City has put into this
project thus far. She expressed concern with mitigation on the property and asked for
clear direction from the Council to allow for mitigation when possible. She believed that
there would be a benefit to a smaller width for the sidewalk, such as four to five feet
rather than the proposed six feet.
Councilmember Mavity believed that in a previous meeting, the Council did provide staff
with the ability to reduce the sidewalk and boulevard widths when needed. Mr. Sullivan
stated staff is clear that modification to the sidewalk or boulevard could occur to reduce
the impact to items such as substantial trees. He stated there will be a better
understanding and better input obtained in regard to vegetation now that the snow is
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
melting. He explained that modification to sidewalk and boulevard width will occur only
in the instance that vegetation could be saved completely.
Jodi Brendel, 3845 Joppa Avenue South, stated she is against the sidewalk along 39th
Street and has been vocal throughout the process. She stated that as a business leader she
was surprised with the amount of question surrounding the designation of certain
sidewalks. She stated she was surprised that there would be a vote tonight and referenced
a petition of 120 people that oppose the sidewalk. She believed that it would be
dangerous to connect 39th Street to France Avenue because of the high amount of traffic
on that roadway. Ms. Brendel did not believe that bicycles are allowed on the sidewalk
and that narrowing the street width would cause safety problems for the children riding
their bicycles. She stated that traffic is minimal along 39th Street and she did not believe
segments would be needed along 41st Street or 39th Street. She questioned if the option
for a back of curb sidewalk had been investigated.
Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the option was investigated and the impact to trees would be
very minor between the two options. He stated the staff recommendation would be for a
boulevard style with a reduction of the street width, rather than the back of curb option.
Ms. Heiser confirmed that bicycles are allowed on sidewalks by State Statute.
Councilmember Mavity referenced the intersection where the sidewalk changes sides of
the road and asked for staff input. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the sidewalk does change
sides of the roadway because of the grade and conditions that exist along the other side of
the roadway, including impacts to utility poles, trees, and driveways. He advised that the
intersection is an all-way stop and staff felt this would be the best opportunity to allow
crossing. He recognized an internal process between departments that is occurring at this
time regarding pedestrian safety being led by the Police Department.
Matt Hoenck, 3830 Inglewood Avenue South, stated that mailings regarding the previous
Study Sessions had only been sent to affected property owners, which is most likely why
only those in opposition attended and previously voiced comments. He spoke in support
of the sidewalks, noting that he also has a child that attended the nearby school without
sidewalk connections. Mr. Hoenck noted that while older children may prefer to ride
their bicycles in the road, it is safer for younger children to ride on the sidewalk. He
noted that these segments would also allow for people to walk around the block without
going onto the roadway. He stated that currently if there is a car parked on 39th Street,
you as a walker, are forced to walk in the middle of the roadway, which is not safe.
Steve Parsons, 3845 Inglewood, thanked the Council for their time to hear the opinions of
the residents. He stated he is in support of the sidewalks, noting that he walked to the
school as a child. He believed that the key issue is safety and noted that it can be
dangerous to walk in the roadway with the amount of traffic and foot traffic along the
road. He referenced the intersection of Lynn Avenue and 39th Street and asked for
additional information.
Mr. Sullivan noted that currently the intersection is skewed and the proposal would help
to better align the intersection. He confirmed that the intersection is also uncontrolled
and noted that staff is investigating the option of installing stop signs at the intersection.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
Mr. Parsons stated he is in favor of narrowing the roadway to help lower vehicle speeds,
as well as a stop sign at the intersection, in addition to the sidewalk segments.
Tom Hillstrom, 3825 Glenhurst Avenue, stated his family previous lived along another
roadway in the City that had a sidewalk and commented on the benefit it provided to his
young children. He spoke in support of the sidewalk segments proposed. He noted that
there are two segments in the area, which currently stop part way through the block and
believed that those should be completed as well.
Matt Stangl, 3801 Huntington Avenue, referenced a petition he created specifically in
regard to the property owners that are in support of the connection of the north south
sidewalks, which currently end part way through blocks near 39th Street along Inglewood,
Huntington, and Glenhurst. He believed that those segments should be completed in
addition to the 39th Street segment. Mr. Stangl stated he spoke with 12 of the 17
impacted property owners for the north south connections, noting that 11 homeowners
did support the request. He advised that the one person who did not support the project is
moving and that is why they did not have interest. He did not believe that there would be
impact to trees for these connections and saw minimal grade issues in completing the
dead-end segments. He also believed that increased coordination with the City Forester
could occur to better determine tree placement for future planning purposes.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the Council has discussed filling in those sidewalk gaps
and questioned if that was in process.
Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the item was not included in the packet for review as staff
has not fully been able to determine all of the sidewalk gaps routes. He explained that if
the approval is gained for the 39th Street segment, staff would look further into making
these connections. He noted that he would like to speak with the impacted homeowners,
just as staff did with the segments proposed tonight.
Jenna Bjorgen, 4281 Ottawa Avenue South, spoke on behalf of herself and two other
residents in the neighborhood expressing support for the sidewalk connections. She
advised that she also supports the petition signed by 190 residents of Minikahda Vista.
She advised that she has also received six additional signatures, bringing the total people
signing the petition to 196. She acknowledged that the City has thus far heard many
negative comments from residents prior to tonight’s meeting and believed that is why so
many people attended voicing their support tonight, in addition to those that have signed
the petition. Ms. Bjorgen also believed that sidewalks should be constructed along 40th
Street and Quenton as well, in addition to those proposed along 39th Street and 41st Street,
among others. She echoed the comments that notification for prior meetings was not sent
to the general public and neighborhood and was only sent to impacted property owners.
She also referenced an email that was sent to members of the Council from School Board
Member Karen Waters regarding the positive link between sidewalks and the safety of
young children.
Lisa Nelson, 3900 Inglewood Avenue South, stated she has lived in the City since 2000.
She spoke in opposition of the sidewalk, noting that her son was one year old when she
moved here and is now 14. She did not believe that there are safety concerns in the
neighborhood and referenced a petition that was signed by 120 residents that oppose the
sidewalk. She asked that the Council consider the input of those residents that will be
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
impacted, as some of the positive comments were made by residents that are not directly
impacted.
James Ragen, 4517 Vallacher Avenue, hoped that the Council could vote in support of
the project. He believed that the segment would allow children to walk safely to school
rather than walking in the roadway with moving traffic. He referenced the Lynn Avenue
and 39th Street intersection, noting that is also a school bus stop. He stated that vehicles
drive through that intersection without looking and believed the improvements suggested
would be a benefit. He noted that there are stop signs along that roadway at every road
with the exception of that intersection and believed that some sort of traffic control would
also be beneficial.
Janette Monte, 3844 Inglewood, stated that everyone in this room has passion. She noted
that drivers should be responsible and young children should not be allowed to ride or
walk in the roadway unsupervised. She stated the discussion is sidewalks and not driver
safety. She noted that 40th Street was allowed to opt out of the project with a petition and
advised that within the small window of time allowed, the petition for 39th Street was
able to collect 120 signatures in opposition of the project from residents directly
impacted. Ms. Monte stated the neighborhood was told that the back of curb option
would be presented and believed that the back of curb option without a boulevard would
be a good compromise. She asked that the vote not be taken tonight due to the additional
information that should be considered for the back of curb option along 39th Street and
due to the absent Councilmembers. She explained that the back of curb option would
only take one foot of existing ROW because the curb will be extended four feet into the
roadway with the narrowing and the sidewalk would be placed near the curb without the
boulevard.
Mr. Harmening confirmed that Councilmember Hallfin did ask staff to consider the back
of curb option and an analysis was brought back to a Study Session in March. He
explained that whether the sidewalk is installed with or without a boulevard, the impact
would be the same.
Councilmember Mavity asked staff to discuss the impacts on vegetation and trees, snow
removal, and safety issue in regard to the boulevard and back of curb options.
Mr. Sullivan explained the difference in tree impacts between the two options, advising
that a back of curb option would only save one four-inch tree, and noted that the direction
of the Council had been to continue with the boulevard option. He explained that the
boulevard option would allow for additional snow storage options on each side of the
road along with additional water infiltration area.
Patty Carlson, 3801 Inglewood, stated her property currently has a sidewalk gap and she
has been very happy that she has not had to shovel that area. She advised of two
incidents that she had at an intersection along 39th Street that were near miss accidents.
She stated she is in support of the sidewalk connection and benefit to safety that would be
provided.
Maura Howard, 4815 Vallacher, stated she is in support of the project and believed the
City does an excellent job trying to compromise with residents. She stated that currently
there is not a sidewalk within a whole block area of her home.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
Mark Tepley, 3903 West 39th Street, stated he is concerned with a six-foot wide sidewalk
and the water that would be carried down that sidewalk. He referenced an update to the
plan that mentions a wall that would be constructed and questioned the design that would
be chosen.
Steve May, 3901 Joppa Avenue, thanked the City staff and Council for their efforts. He
stated there have not been safety issues demonstrated noting that he has lived in this area
for the past 24 years. He referenced the petition of 120 people that are not in support of
the project. He offered his services as a blue ribbon panel member as he did not believe
there is an issue with children reaching the schools but their activities at school instead.
Suzann Willhite, 3905 Glenhurst, spoke in support of the sidewalk and the calming effect
this project could have on traffic. She stated she would also like to see the direction from
the Council that staff should offer mitigation when possible. She appreciated the snow
removal that would occur without placing that responsibility on homeowners and would
like to see the needs of homeowners addressed.
Sara Bergen, 2939 Princeton, referenced an article in the local paper that was printed
during the weekend that mentioned a family that moved from St. Louis Park to another
community that better provides walkability and connectivity. She noted that the sidewalk
is going to be within the ROW, which is already City-owned property. She understood
that the issue impacts current homeowners but noted that the sidewalks will outlast a
majority of the existing homeowners. She asked the Council to vote on this issue and
noted that just because there has not been a safety incident thus far, that does not mean
that an incident will not occur.
James Ragen, 4517 Vallacher, stated he believed that some of the homeowners in the area
will not be satisfied no matter the outcome. He asked that the Council vote on this issue
tonight.
Thomas Hart, 4015 West 39th Street, stated he has accepted the fact that there will be a
sidewalk. He suggested that perhaps the narrowing of the roadway continue to France.
He believed that there is too much traffic and the narrowing would have a calming impact
on traffic.
Larry Jones, 3000 Highway 100 South #407, referenced the project schedule and
questioned if the City Forester could review the roots system along 39th Street. He
suggested that portion of the project approval should be delayed.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity stated this is a big conversation with a lot of important details.
She thanked Mr. Sullivan for his efforts and professionalism. She acknowledged that
there is not a full Council tonight but also acknowledged the number of residents that
have attended and spoke tonight. She stated she has been clear that she is in favor of a
safer more walkable community that focuses on the safety of children. She also
recognized the efforts of Melissa and Don Bogert, who were unable to attend. She
referenced the support of the school PTO and believed that to be an important
consideration. Councilmember Mavity thanked everyone for their input and passion and
explained that while she does not use the sidewalk in front of her home, others do. She
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 11
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
agreed that perhaps additional residents should have been notified earlier in the process
but noted that the intent was to obtain input from those residents directly impacted. She
stated she would like to proceed with all of the segments proposed and believed staff has
done a great job mitigating when possible. Councilmember Mavity noted that there
should not be a cost to residents for this community project and clearly articulated that
staff should have flexibility in minimizing impacts to homeowners while still being able
to accomplish the desired outcome. She proposed that the blocks connected to the
segments mentioned earlier should be completed as well and agreed that the action for
those segments could come back at a later date as those segments had not been included
in the Resolution.
Councilmember Brausen thanked the residents who spoke tonight and acknowledged that
change is always hard. He stated that the betterment of the community is not always
what is preferred or desired by individual homeowners and advised that he will be in
support of the six sidewalk segments.
Councilmember Spano stated that comments have been made as to whether there are
safety issues and whether there would be impacts to property values. He asked if there is
a proven impact in regard to property values or crime rates.
Ms. Heiser stated staff has investigated that issue. She stated the property value can be
an individual preference, noting that some prefer a sidewalk when purchasing a home
while others do not. She referenced studies that show property values have increased
after a sidewalk was installed but again noted that issue comes down to a personal
preference. She stated that in terms of safety there is proven information, referencing the
Safe Routes to Schools initiative.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he believes there are still some questions to be answered
and was not certain that he could make a decision on all of the segments at this time. He
appreciated the public input received and believed in the program. He acknowledged that
there is an increased impact on homeowners in applying this program in a developed
community. Councilmember Lindberg did not believe that it would be detrimental to
wait another two weeks to vote. He referenced the width of the sidewalk along 41st Street
and the possibility of narrowing that sidewalk segment from six to four feet.
Ms. Heiser noted that on sidewalks four to five feet in width, there is not much room for
passing residents with baby strollers, wheelchairs, or animals. She noted that staff
attempted to be cognoscente of recommending a project that would fit within the existing
ROW and fit with the future planning vision of the City. She highlighted some benefits
of wider sidewalks including snow removal and storage.
Councilmember Lindberg referenced the 39th Street segment and questioned if the
Council is comfortable with the process thus far in terms of clarity in working with the
homeowners and allowing flexibility.
Councilmember Spano stated that Councilmember Hallfin did ask that the vote be
delayed and noted that he would be in support of the decision to postpone the vote for
that reason. He stated he does support the construction of these sidewalk segments. He
noted that the previous discussion focused on trees and tree configuration and believed
the major concern of the residents at that time to be the impact to the tree canopy.
Councilmember Spano advised that alternative configurations were discussed and the
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 12
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
residents simply stated they did not want a sidewalk. He stated there was interest from
some of those residents tonight in the back of curb option. He stated he is less concerned
with the configuration and questioned if the back of curb option would be something that
neighborhood would support.
Mr. Sullivan believed that the sidewalk with boulevard option presented would be the
best option. He stated he did not want to speak for the residents but believed that some
residents would oppose any option presented. He stated that from a staff perspective, he
did not feel anything would be gained with the back of curb option or that any more
support would be gained with that option.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger reminded everyone that this program came forward with the
vision St. Louis Park process five years ago. She stated she supports all of the sidewalk
segments and believed that staff developed the best plans in order to accomplish the goals
while addressing resident concerns. She questioned if flexibility could be given to staff
to make small changes, should that be necessary, if the project is approved tonight.
Ms. Heiser stated staff was given clear council direction after the previous Study Session
on the desire to work with homeowners when possible, highlighting certain properties
staff will be visiting now that the snow has melted. She stated that staff will work with
residents to make this a great project.
Mr. Harmening restated to staff that it is Council’s desire that in cases where specific
circumstances like a tree dictate that the sidewalk should move or narrow a bit, that could
be done. But, except for those certain circumstances, the sidewalk will be six feet in
width. He wanted to ensure that was made clear to avoid future problems.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger confirmed that was the direction given by the Council. She also
agreed with the comments made by Councilmember Mavity that sidewalks are not for the
person who lives on them but for the entire community, just like roads. She understood
that there can be negative impacts on certain property owners, but acknowledged that this
is an infrastructure improvement similar to any other. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger did not
believe there is a benefit in considering the back of curb option along 39th Street because
of the similar impact and the additional benefits provided by the boulevard option. She
stated she lives on a back of curb sidewalk and noted that the sidewalk is not functional
in the winter because of the snow that is pushed onto the sidewalk by the plow and the
little amount of space to store snow. She believed that the discussion has gone on long
enough for this issue and voting should occur tonight.
Councilmember Mavity stated that while she respects the request of Councilmember
Hallfin to delay the decision she also respects the many residents that attended the
meeting and spoke tonight. She believed that flexibility should be given to staff to
deviate from the sidewalk width when special circumstances dictate.
Mr. Harmening noted that a special provision could be added to item four that would
state staff is authorized to deviate from the plans and specifications including sidewalk
width, when special circumstances occur.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 14-054 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 13
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
No. 4014-2000, Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for
Bids for these Improvements, as amended by adding a provision that staff is authorized to
deviate from the plans and specification including sidewalk width, when special
circumstances dictate.
Further discussion: Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that while the project may not be
desired by specific property owners, she believed the overall project would benefit the
community as a whole.
Councilmember Spano stated that the City was built in a different time, noting that many
homes were constructed with a one-car garage while most homeowners have more than
one vehicle today. He acknowledged that the City is attempting to add items that were
not originally planned but believed that there would be many safety benefits.
The motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Heiser mentioned the next steps the City will take on this project.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Project Report Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Pavement Management
Area 2 – Project #2013-1000
Mr. Sullivan introduced project #2013-1000. He explained that the City is divided into
eight pavement management areas and each year the City focuses on one area. He
reviewed the requested City Council action request, which includes a Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) with the City of Edina. He reviewed the project area and the proposed
street rehabilitation work as well as optional water service line replacement for
homeowners. He noted that if this project is approved the previously approved sidewalk
segments for 41st Street and Morningside would be incorporated into this project to
obtain a cost savings. Mr. Sullivan reported that a public meeting occurred on February
27th and identified additional communications that would continue with residents. He
noted this would be a substantial summer project and only local traffic would be allowed
through the area during the construction time. He advised that a detour route would be
identified. He reviewed the estimated cost and funding for the project, noting that Edina
would pay for a portion of the project in order for the City to fully complete a section of
roadway that is located within Edina. He also reviewed the project timeline.
Councilmember Spano referenced the project budget, noting the increased cost estimate,
and questioned the impact that increase could have on the ability to complete other
projects. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that this is a large project and advised that staff has
worked directly with the Finance Department to ensure sufficient funding, not only for
this project but for the others listed on the Capital Improvement Plan.
Ms. Heiser noted staff is not proposing to postpone any other projects by continuing with
this project. She advised that in addition, staff will be continuing discussions on the
aging infrastructure.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3b) Page 14
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2014
Mr. Harmening stated that staff is discussing the possibility of lowering the threshold of
replacement for certain infrastructure items, specifically in regard to water mains and
sanitary sewer. He explained that if there are problems with the existing infrastructure, it
sometimes makes sense to replace that infrastructure when completing roadwork.
Councilmember Spano agreed it makes perfect sense to time those investments together
and questioned when the project is estimated to end. Mr. Sullivan believed the project
would wrap up in late October.
Councilmember Mavity encouraged staff to reach out to residents in any available form
of communication in order to ensure that residents are properly alerted. She also
suggested that the communications attempt to be aligned with neighborhood meetings.
She believed that coordination with the residents would be important because of the scale
of the project and possible summer plans, such as graduation party plans, some residents
may have.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 14-055 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
No. 2013-1000, Approving Plans and Specifications, Approving the Joint Powers
Agreement with the City of Edina, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for these
Improvements.
The motion passed 5-0.
8b. Task Force for South Side of Excelsior Boulevard Design Guidelines Process
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that the Council held informal discussion on this item
earlier in the night and thanked all the applicants for their desire to serve. She advised
that the City received more applications than available positions and asked
Councilmember Mavity to review the list of applicants the Council selected.
Councilmember Mavity reviewed the purpose of the Task Force.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to select
and appoint Aimee Olson, Allison Moehnke, Ben Stewart, Caitlin Goff, Graham Merry,
June Petrie, Larry North, Matt Stangl, Michael Edlavitch, Sam Bryson, Thia Bryan, Bob
Cunningham, Robb Bader, and Maureen Fitzgerald to the Task Force for the South Side
of Excelsior Boulevard Design Guidelines Process.
The motion passed 5-0.
9. Communications
There were none.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 21, 2014
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano (arrived at 7:06 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Housing Coordinator (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Olson), Marketing
and Communications & Marketing Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
1. Southwest LRT Update
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and the Preliminary Design Plans prepared by the SPO. He
advised that the City is required to hold a public hearing on the Preliminary Design Plans and
suggested that the public hearing be scheduled for May 19th with an open house prior to the
public hearing where representatives from the SPO will be in attendance to answer questions and
provide a brief presentation of the Preliminary Design Plans. He noted that the Preliminary
Design Plans related to St. Louis Park are available on the City’s website and the entire set of
plans is available on the Met Council website. He discussed the Preliminary Design Plans and
stated that new bridges are proposed near the Louisiana Avenue station, which is situated along
Oxford rather than the Methodist Hospital switching wye location proposed by the City. He
stated that the SPO proposes to acquire parcels on the north side of Oxford for a park and ride,
adding that the SPO is showing all park and rides in the City at grade. He explained that in order
to make it relatively easy to go from the trail to the Louisiana Avenue station, the SPO has
proposed a pedestrian underpass underneath the freight rail/LRT/trail corridor. He indicated that
the storage yard for Construction Materials’ operation is located in this area and the City has
asked if the SPO plans to acquire the property on the south side of Oxford where it’s building as
well. If that happens, that would provide an opportunity to create a more direct pedestrian
connection to Methodist Hospital from the station platform. This is one of the items in the City’s
station area plans for Louisiana Avenue. He advised that the only part of the switching wye
being removed as part of the SWLRT project is the northern tip of the north leg of the wye. The
SWLRT plan includes construction of a connection to the MN&S going south from the Bass
Lake spur. The connection south bridges over the light rail tracks just east of the Louisiana
Station platform. The connection south is elevated above Oxford and a retaining wall is shown
along the elevated section. He explained that the plans include a signal bungalow near the
Wooddale station to contain the controls for a switch that makes it possible for the light rail
trains to shift between the pair of LRT tracks.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City has any flexibility as to the location of the signal
bungalows, particularly since the proposed location near the Wooddale station is close to single
family homes.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 21, 2014
Mr. Locke replied that the City has raised that question with the SPO and will remain sensitive to
the location of the signal bungalow, adding that an ideal location for the signal bungalow would
be in an industrial area rather than near a residential area. He explained that the Wooddale
Avenue station does not include a park and ride and the plans show the regional trail crossing of
Wooddale Avenue as an at grade crossing, adding that the City has indicated an at grade crossing
will not be acceptable at this location and further discussion needs to take place with the SPO.
He stated the plans include a kiss-and-ride drop-off at Yosemite as well as on the frontage road
on the north side of the LRT. The City has expressed concerns about the frontage road kiss-and-
ride location due to traffic and access issues.
Councilmember Mavity stated it was her understanding the proposal with PLACE included
moving the frontage road to provide a complete development site and asked how that impacts
these plans.
Mr. Locke stated the City will need to further discuss this with the SPO once the PLACE
proposal is further developed, including the best way to get people in and out of this area. He
then described the light rail alignment moving to the east past Cityscape Apartments and the old
McGarvey site and stated the plans show new bridges for the trail, light rail, and freight rail
crossing over Highway 100 as well as a potential traction power substation east of Highway 100.
He stated the plans include an at grade crossing of Beltline Boulevard with the station to the east
of Beltline and a surface park and ride in the southeast quadrant of Beltline and CSAH 25. He
advised that the City has been working with the SPO on a joint development project for this
quadrant that could include a mixed use transit oriented development integrating the parking
either on site or in a parking structure over the station. He stated the plans include a traffic signal
at Lynn to control access in and out of the parking facility with Lynn connecting into the
frontage road along CSAH 25. Staff will continue to work with the SPO on the Joint
Development of this site, as well as the location of the kiss-and-ride and bus access.
Councilmember Hallfin asked who owns the section of vacant land south of the tracks.
Mr. Locke replied that the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority owns this parcel and their
intent is to sell the parcel for transit oriented development and noted that the City purchased its
site for redevelopment purposes with the thought of integrating the parcel with the County’s
parcel.
Councilmember Sanger requested that staff provide Council with a drawing that shows the
access points in this area and how traffic is going to get in and out from all directions.
Councilmember Mavity expressed significant concern about the Preliminary Design Plans and
stated the City has been working for many years with the neighborhoods about transit oriented
development as well as access issues around Beltline and was disappointed that the plans show a
mass of surface parking lots. She stated the City needs to present the SPO with an overlay that
clearly shows what this is going to look like to make it work, adding that the plans do not address
any of the circulation issues previously discussed by the City, including the circulation issues at
Nordic Ware.
Councilmember Sanger stated she met with Jim Brimeyer this morning and he provided her with
a letter he presented to the Met Council and asked that copies be provided to Council and to
Safety in the Park representatives. She stated that Council should have a discussion in the near
future about the process for adding contingencies to the municipal consent resolution.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 21, 2014
Mr. Locke advised that staff has asked the SPO to provide the City with more specific
information about what should and can be included in the City’s municipal consent resolutions as
well as how the SPO envisions the City dealing with the joint development issue; in addition,
staff has asked the City Attorney to comment on municipal consent in the context of State law.
Councilmember Sanger advised that Mr. Brimeyer mentioned that he expected many of the
communities would be attaching contingencies in their municipal consent resolutions and he
stated he did not have a problem with that conceptually.
Councilmember Brausen stated the City needs to focus on joint development funds related to the
Beltline station and felt it would be key to include some affordable housing. He also felt that
Park Nicollet should be brought into the conversation quickly in order to voice their opinion
regarding the station location and to see if they are willing to make a financial commitment.
It was the consensus of the City Council to set and publish notice for the public hearing with
open house on May 19, 2014.
2. Review of City’s Housing Goals
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Ms. Schnitker presented the draft housing goals that were revised based on Council’s
conversation at its retreat and are intended to reflect where Council wants to focus its efforts and
meet the needs of the community going forward. She also presented a report prepared by
Maxfield Research that includes a comparison of the number of subsidized units to surrounding
communities and includes demographic characteristics as background.
Councilmember Sanger felt that the first bullet point under affordable housing (promote and
facilitate a mix of housing types, prices, and rents suitable for households of all income levels
including affordable housing for low and moderate income households) did not belong under the
title of Affordable Housing because that statement encompasses all of the City’s housing and the
statement should be placed at the beginning of the policy or integrated into the first sentence of
the policy.
Councilmember Mavity suggested including a statement that states the City is committed to
providing affordable housing throughout the community.
Councilmember Brausen noted that the first bullet point under Affordable Housing references
housing types, prices, and rents for households of all income levels.
Ms. Schnitker stated the City’s intent is that affordable housing should be disbursed throughout
the City and not concentrated in any one area.
Councilmember Sanger indicated the policy previously stated that mixed income units should be
disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area or project and felt that
statement needs to be placed back in the revised policy so that the City does not end up with
projects that are all low income.
Councilmember Mavity strongly disagreed and stated that it is often easier to do a building that
is all affordable housing, which does not mean they are all one level of income and that does not
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 21, 2014
represent concentration if you have sixty affordable units within a five block area of 1,000 units,
adding that is how the financing for these projects works.
Councilmember Sanger stated the problem is that Council has approved too many high end
apartment buildings and she did not want to go back to where there is a building with all low
income and the building is not kept up, adding it has worked well in the past to have low income
scattered in other buildings.
Councilmember Mavity disagreed and felt this interpretation was too narrow. She stated that
property management issues should be kept separate, adding that the majority of affordable
housing providers are not projects that are run down.
Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Mavity.
Mr. Locke stated the draft policy is intended to focus on an area or sub-district as having a mix
of housing and not all one type of housing, e.g., areas where there are 1,000 units of various
buildings and types and perhaps 30-50 units that are some type of affordable housing.
Councilmember Hallfin felt Council could all agree that it does not want affordable housing
concentrated in any one area.
Councilmember Mavity felt that the City’s role was to create healthy balanced neighborhoods
and not to be involved at a level that gets into the private financing of a project, adding she felt
that level of involvement was overreaching and would not accomplish what the City is trying to
do in having a strong and balanced community without concentrations of poverty.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that Excelsior and Grand has scattered affordable housing and
represents a model for what he would like to see the City do more of, adding that he felt the
statement in the draft policy was sufficient.
Mr. Harmening noted that if a proposed development includes an affordability component, the
City will have a say in that and/or will need to support it in some way so Council retains the
ability to review these types of projects on a case by case basis.
Councilmember Hallfin noted that Council agreed at its retreat that City staff would have a
conversation up front about affordable housing whenever a developer presents a project.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was not sure that the fourth bullet point should state that the
City promotes the inclusion of affordable housing, adding that having a conversation about the
feasibility of including affordable housing was different than promoting it.
Councilmember Brausen proposed including language in the policy to require affordable housing
and felt if the policy does not contain this language, the market is not going to have to respond
by including affordable housing in any project. He stated if affordable housing is required,
developers will find a way to include it, otherwise, it is not going to happen and that is why the
City is hundreds of units behind in meeting its Livable Communities goals.
Councilmember Sanger indicated the City is doing a better job of including affordable housing
than other communities and did not feel the City needed to be aggressive by requiring it. She
questioned whether it was the City’s job to require more affordable housing when peer
communities are not doing their share.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of April 21, 2014
Councilmember Brausen referenced the cost burdens contained in the Maxfield report that about
30% of households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing and 40.8% of renters
are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. He noted that 8.8% of households are
below the poverty line, which is a reflection of the affordability of available rentals and felt that
the City needed to set aggressive goals and demand that developers include affordable housing.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City is already seeing the market respond to the anticipation of
light rail based on the increase in the number of high end luxury units and if the City puts
nothing in place, that is all the City will get and if the City does nothing, all the development
proposals will be market rate.
Mr. Harmening asked if it made sense to address housing development near the City’s light rail
stations where developers request some help from the City, adding that even if a developer
wanted to do only market rate apartments, the City would have leverage to require them to
include affordable housing or make a payment in lieu thereof.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed that the housing policy should require affordable housing and
include a process whereby the City retains the flexibility to approve a project without an
affordable housing component.
Councilmember Spano stated he was surprised that the City has more affordable housing units
than its peer cities and questioned what Hennepin County is doing to push other cities to catch
up. He stated he did not want to mandate more affordable housing units in the City, adding that
he feared that some developer would offer the City significant cash to tear down Meadowbrook
and build something else there and could not envision a scenario where he would support that,
adding he supported the idea of developing targeted strategic decisions for affordable housing
around the light rail stations and making sure people do not get pushed out of their
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Hallfin indicated the City has more affordable housing units because it has two
areas of naturally occurring affordable housing, adding he would not object to someone replacing
Meadowbrook with a percentage of affordable housing instead of being concentrated in one area.
Councilmember Lindberg reminded Council that the City has done a good job of providing
affordable housing. He stated he was not in favor of requiring developers to include affordable
housing and supported including language that states the City promotes the inclusion of
affordable housing, particularly around the light rail station areas.
Mayor Jacobs expressed support for quality housing throughout the City and agreed that the City
should require affordable housing around transit nodes, adding that he was not a huge fan of
mandating but unless affordable housing is mandated in these areas, it will not happen.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to direct staff to draft language for
Council consideration that speaks more specifically to focusing affordable housing opportunities
around the light rail stations.
The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Minutes: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 21, 2014
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:32 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), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Recreation
Supervisor (Mr. Rosa), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Presentation Accepting Monetary Donation from the Rotary Club of St.
Louis Park for the Summer Concert Series ($1,000)
Mr. Jim Rhodes stated that for the past two years, the Rotary has enjoyed hosting the
Winter Fun Day in conjunction with local civic sponsors. He then introduced Mr. Paul
Bierhaus, former Rotary President and former District Governor, and Mr. Shady Taha of
the Rotary Club of St. Louis Park.
Mr. Bierhaus presented a $1,000 check to the City on behalf of the Rotary Club for use in
the City’s upcoming summer concert series. He also thanked the City for its previous
donations of playground equipment to Kids Around the World, Inc.
Mr. Rosa thanked the Rotary for its $1,000 donation and stated the money will be used
for the Summer Concert Series, a free program held at the amphitheater.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to the Rotary Club for its generous
donation.
3. Approval of Minutes - None
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.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2014
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 14-056 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.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 14-057 Amending and Restating the Final Planned Unit
Development for the West End Redevelopment Project.
4c. Moved to Item 8a
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 14-058 authorizing installation of restricted parking – loading
zone on Webster Avenue, just north of 36th Street.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 14-059 authorizing installation of stop signs on Oregon Avenue
at 29th Street.
4f. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes February 19,
2014.
Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item 4c be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move
Consent Calendar item 4c to the regular agenda as item 8a; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Resolution Accepting the Contents and Recommendations of the Southwest
Corridor Investment Framework pertaining to St. Louis Park. Resolution
No. 14-060.
Councilmember Spano stated that the Transitional Station Area Action Plan process was
intended to promote opening day readiness in 2018, and he wished to point out that the
Southwest LRT project’s opening day has now been pushed back to 2019.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 14-060 Accepting the Southwest Corridor Investment Framework and
Transitional Station Area Action Plans (TSAAP) in the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2014
9. Communications
Mr. Harmening advised that an audience member requested that consent calendar item
4d-Resolution Authorizing Installation of Restricted Parking – Loading Zone on Webster
Avenue just north of 36th Street - be taken off of the consent agenda.
Mr. Brad Benyas approached the City Council and stated he is the owner of the Segway
business on Webster and 32nd. He stated they have no parking for their building so they
utilize the street for their employees and visitors. He stated the area is growing in terms
of retail presence, and he has noticed an increase in beer truck deliveries at Four Firkins.
On occasion they have been double parking on 36th Street in order to unload. Someone
called the police to report they were blocking traffic. He questioned whether this requires
a full-time loading zone and stated there is a total of six spaces for cars and this would
take 20% of that available parking on the street in order to dedicate a full-time loading
and no parking zone. He stated if there is going to be a loading zone, he would prefer to
see limited hours and requested that the City have at least designated loading zone hours
instead of a no parking area. He added that there is an underutilized triangle of land
where Hoigaard’s held their tent sales that is used for overflow parking, and he felt this
would be a more appropriate place for delivery trucks to park.
Mayor Jacobs requested that staff further discuss this matter with Mr. Benyas to address
his concerns and see if a better solution is available.
Mr. Harmening advised that Council approved the Resolution earlier; however, the City
would delay implementing the no parking/loading zone restrictions to allow an
opportunity for staff to further review the matter. He added that Council does not need to
reconsider or withdraw its action tonight, and City staff will provide an update to Council
in the near future.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the allocation of neighborhood
grants for 2014/2015?
SUMMARY: Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to
promote strong neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors
together. Grant applications from 21 neighborhoods were received in March. On April 8th
Breanna Erickson facilitated the grant review process with Grant Review Committee Members
Erica Bagstad (Pennsylvania Park), Mary Kay Raycette (Oak Hill), Marney Olson (City Staff)
and Brian Johnson (Minikahda Oaks). The Grant Review Committee met to review the grant
applications and make funding recommendations to the City Council. Attached is a worksheet
that provides specific detail on the recommendations made by the Grant Review Committee.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Grant Review Committee recommends
approval of $31,000 to fund the following 21 neighborhood grants:
$1350 Aquila $1975 Birchwood $1996 Blackstone
$1520 Bronx Park $610 Brooklawns $1100 Brookside
$2000 Browndale $940 Cobblecrest $1135 Creekside
$740 Crestview $1600 Eliot View $1925 Elmwood
$1505 Fern Hill $1205 Lake Forest $1700 Lenox
$2000 Minikahda Oaks $1349 Minikahda Vista $1875 Minnehaha
$2000 Sorensen $475 South Oak Hill $2000 Westwood Hills
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $1375 to fund the environmental grants
for fourteen neighborhoods.
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $4400 to fund insurance purchases for
twelve neighborhoods.
This report was given to Council for review as a “Report” at the April 28, 2014 Study Session.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2014/2015 Neighborhood Grant Guidelines
2014/2015 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet
Prepared by: Breanna Erickson, Community Liaison
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to
promote strong neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors
together. The City Council appropriated $31,000 in grant funds for the 2014 neighborhood grant
program, $2,000 for environmental initiatives, and $15,000 for insurance. Organized St. Louis
Park neighborhood associations may apply for up to $2,000 annually to support activities,
operations and community building activities and up to $100 for environmental related activities.
Neighborhood Associations are responsible for providing insurance when planning
neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not limited
to, moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. Neighborhood associations can apply for a maximum of $500
in addition to the standard grant to assist with purchasing insurance.
Grant applications from 21 neighborhoods were received in March. The total grant request for
2014/2015 was $32,677. Twelve of these neighborhoods also applied for additional insurance
reimbursements and fourteen neighborhoods applied for the environmental funding. The Grant
Review Committee that met April 8th evaluated each grant application and made funding
recommendations to meet the $31,000 budget for the neighborhood grants. The grant
applications came in $1,677 over budget so the committee was forced to make reductions to
some of the neighborhoods. The 2014 Neighborhood Grant Guidelines state that garage sales
will be given the lowest priority, and, if grant requests exceed the amount available for funding,
garage sales will not be funded. For 2014/2015 the committee chose not to fund garage sales
since this is a revenue generating activity for participants. The committee made up of three
residents did a great job evaluating each grant against the grant guidelines and making cuts to
stay within budget and meet the goal of the grants which is to support neighborhoods and
enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together.
Having said the above, it appears that over the years the criteria for obtaining the grant funding
has not been followed as closely as it should be. For example, to obtain grant funding the
neighborhood should be organized with a board of directors and bylaws and should describe in
its application how they actively solicited in a timely fashion the neighborhoods input on the
grant application. In addition, the neighborhood association should be taking steps to insure the
healthy turnover of leadership on their neighborhood association board. Given that in some
cases things have slipped a bit in meeting these criteria, staff will be taking steps in the near
future to inform or remind the neighborhood of these criteria in order to give them time to
prepare for next year’s grant application cycle.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
2014/2015 GRANT GUIDELINES
Grant Purpose
In 1996, the City of St. Louis Park established this grant program to support neighborhoods and
enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together. Financial support is provided
for special projects initiated by neighbors to address issues, implement ideas or create
opportunities that are meaningful and important to their neighborhoods. This purpose still
applies today and supports the Vision Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being
a connected and engaged community.
In 2014/2015, up to $31,000 in grants will be available to organized St. Louis Park
neighborhoods for activities that physically improve the neighborhood, enhance the sense of
community within the neighborhood, support citizen involvement, or develop neighborhood
leadership.
Environmental Grant: An additional $2,000 in grants will be available to neighborhoods that
incorporate an environmental component either in conjunction with an existing event or adding a
new program/event. This new grant element ties to the Vision Strategic Direction: 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.
Money is also available for neighborhood associations seeking additional insurance for
neighborhood activities. More information is available on page 3 under “Funding for
Insurance”.
Eligible Activities
Examples of eligible uses for grant funds are: newsletters, meetings, postage, picnics, parties,
youth or senior programs, new neighbor welcome, hayrides, ice cream socials, children’s
parades, entrance signs, flower plantings, park improvements or community gardens. However,
neighborhoods are not limited to these examples. Residents are encouraged to be creative in
assessing their needs and determining the projects they want to undertake as a neighborhood.
Neighborhood leaders are required to include neighborhood resident input for proposed
projects. How you choose to receive this input must be included in the grant application.
A few examples of eligible expenses for the environmental component are: purchasing
environmentally friendly products for a neighborhood event, hosting an earth day or buckthorn
removal event, and working with our Parks & Rec department to add plants or recycling
containers to a park.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
Eligible Applicants
To qualify, a neighborhood must have an established formal neighborhood association with
elected officers and a method of transferring leadership from one year to the next. A
neighborhood association must have written bylaws approved by its membership. Bylaws
should be reviewed annually.
Matching Grant Funds
To qualify for a grant, a neighborhood must demonstrate how it will contribute to or leverage the
Neighborhood Revitalization grant funds. A match of neighborhood resources maximizes the
use of limited City funds and confirms the commitment from each neighborhood.
Neighborhoods should provide a 100% (dollar for dollar) match to the grant amount. Any
combination of sources is acceptable in calculating the neighborhood match. These can be in the
form of:
• cash raised through fundraising • fees collected at activities
• donations from businesses, civic groups, etc. • in-kind services or sweat equity
Innovative Projects
The neighborhood activity cannot duplicate a service already in place.
Improvements to Private Property
Neighborhoods should be aware that legal issues limit the use of City funds to improve private
property. Applicants should be able to clearly demonstrate a strong public purpose for funds
proposed to improve private property in any way.
Improvements to Public Land or Parks
Physical improvements to any public property must be coordinated with the appropriate City
department. It should not conflict with or duplicate a project in the City’s Capital Improvements
Program. A letter of feasibility must be included with a grant application that requests funding
for park improvements. This letter should confirm that the appropriate City department has
reviewed the proposed improvements, that the proposal is feasible, and that the project budget is
a reasonable estimate of project costs.
City department contacts for capital improvements;
• Scott Brink, Public Works Department, 952-924-2687
• Rick Beane, Parks and Recreation Department, 952-928-2854
Old Grants
Neighborhoods with a previous grant must close out their account before new grant funds are
awarded. The deadline to close out 2013 grants is April 30, 2014. Neighborhoods that received
a lump sum advance amount for a 2013 grant must turn in all outstanding receipts or reimburse
the city for funds not used.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
2014/2015 Grant Deadlines
2014/15 grants will run from May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015. All receipts for expenses incurred
in 2014 should be turned in by January 31, 2015. All 2015 receipts are due by May 1, 2015.
Funding Priorities
Up to $31,000 is available for grants to neighborhoods in this funding cycle, including $2,000 for
environmental components. However, with 27 organized neighborhoods eligible for funds, the
process is competitive. Neighborhood leaders are advised to request funds for their most
important needs. During the grant review process, greater consideration will be given to
proposals that enhance community connections and show a greater match amount. Lesser
consideration will be given to proposals for park improvements and proposals that show a large
expenditure for a single activity. Garage sales will be given the lowest priority. If grant requests
exceed the amount available for funding, garage sales will not be funded.
Funding for Insurance
When planning neighborhood events in parks, you may be required to make provisions to use
your own insurance. Neighborhood Associations are responsible for providing outside insurance
when planning neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as,
but not limited to moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. Without clear delineation of who is responsible
in case of accidents, neighborhood leaders may be held liable.
To assist neighborhood associations with purchasing additional insurance, you can apply for a
maximum of $500 per neighborhood in addition to the standard grant request. This money is
strictly for insurance and cannot be used for any other reimbursement.
Award Limits
Group activities, social events and meetings are considered for funding up to a maximum
of $800 per activity.
There is a $2000 grant award limit per neighborhood for all requests. Any neighborhood
requesting more than $1500 is advised to include priority preferences on their application.
Neighborhoods can apply for up to $100 for environmental projects.
$500 per neighborhood is available for the purchase of insurance.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
Grant Process Steps
1. Apply
Applications must be received by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 24th, 2014. They may be
mailed or hand-delivered to Breanna Erickson, Community Liaison, City of St. Louis Park,
3015 Raleigh Ave. South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Grants may also be submitted by email
to berickson@stlouispark.org or faxed to 952-924-2676. Any applications received after the
deadline will not be eligible to receive a grant. Please email Breanna if you would like to
receive an electronic grant application.
2. Review Time
City staff and a committee of volunteer neighborhood leaders will review the grant proposals
and make recommendations for approval to the City Manager.
3. Final Approval
Final authorization of the awards will be approved at a City Council Meeting late April or
early May.
4. Signed Agreements
Within two weeks of approval, each recipient neighborhood will receive a grant agreement
from the City. The agreement must be signed and returned prior to any funds being released.
Pre-application Assistance
All applicants are strongly encouraged to talk to city staff as they work to identify projects and
put together their applications. This will help to ensure complete and accurate applications, as
well as streamline application review.
Electronic Application
Contact Breanna Erickson at berickson@stlouispark.org or 952-924-2184 if you would like an
electronic application (Microsoft Excel) emailed to you.
Questions?
Contact Breanna Erickson, Community Liaison
at (952) 924-2184 or berickson@stlouispark.org
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
2014/2015 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet
The 2014/15 grant period begins May 1, 2014 and ends April 30, 2015.
Requested Amount
Amount
Recommended
Aquila $1,350
$1,350 $150 Trail Clean Up
$700 Picnic/Annual Meeting
$500 Newsletter/Mailing
$100 Environmental: Trail Clean up $100
$50 Insurance Request $50
Birchwood $1,975
$1,975 $475 Ice Cream Social
$700 Skating Party
$450 Movie Night
$350 Newsletter
$500 Insurance Request $500
Blackstone $1,996
$1,996 $321 Porta Potty at Blackstone Park
$160 Blackstone Park Lawn and Trees
$190 Summer Kick Off Party
$170 Summer Gathering
$75 Ice Cream/Float Social
$445 National Night Out
$215 Pizza Night
$260 Winter Gathering
$160 Operating Support
$100 Insurance Request $100
$100 Environmental Component: Flowers $100
Bronx Park $1,520
$1,670 $700 Annual Neighborhood Picnic $150 Cut made
for the
neighborhood
garage sale
advertisement
$150 Neighborhood Garage Sale
$420 Children & Family Social Activities
$200 Neighborhood Newsletter
$200 General Meeting Expenses
$200 Insurance Request $200
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
Requested Amount
Amount
Recommended
Brooklawns $610
$610 $50 Kid's Egg Hunt
$300 Kid's Halloween Party
$260 National Night Out Block Parties
$75
Environmental Component: Fall Planter
Event $75
Brookside $1,100
$1,200 $500 National Night Out Block Party $100 Cut made
for the
neighborhood
yard sale
newspaper add
$250 Annual Meeting
$200 Parade & Picnic at Jackley Park
$100 Nbhd Yard Sale- Ads for newspaper
$150 Porta Potty at Jackley Park
$150 Insurance Request $150
$100 Environment: Weed noise wall $100
Browndale $2,000
$2,000 $400 Newsletter
$600 Fall Bonfire and Bluegrass Event
$500 Family Camp Outs
$100 Winterfest
$150 Spring Egg Hunt
$125 Earth Day Children's Event
$125 Independence Day Kid's Parade
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Environmental: Earth Day Clean Up $100
Cobblecrest $940
$1,100 $880 Hayride at Aquila Park Cut $160 from
general for not
specific project
request
$400 Insurance Request $400
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 9
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
Requested Amount
Amount
Recommended
Creekside $1,135
$1,135 $10 Plant Exchange
$40 Creekside Clean Up
$700 Neighborhood Block Party
$75 Neighborhood Plant Urn
$50 National Night Out
$150 Porta Potty at Jackley Park
$40 Winter Event
$70 Annual Meeting & Admin Costs
$500 Insurance Request $500
Crestview $740
$737 $418 Neighborhood Picnic
$169 Neighborhood Signage
$50 Women's Social
$100 Block Captain Gathering
$500 Insurance Request $500
Eliot View $1,600
$2,150 $650 Annual Picnic & Election Cut $550 total,
mostly general cuts;
$100 cut from
Website
development, and
reduce $200 for
Garden Party
(suggest use of
SLP Staff Speaker).
$400 Garden Party with Ice Cream Social
$550 Night at the Movies
$450 Youth Activity/Fitness
$100 Website Development- Outside Assistance
$100 Environmental: Garden Party $100
Elmwood $1,925
$2,000 $75 Garage Sale (or to be used for advertising other events)
$450 Kids Halloween Party
$600 Porta Potty at Central Park Cut $75 for garage
sale advertising
$675 Summer Picnic
$50 Annual Meeting
$150 Annual Winter Bowling Party
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Environmental: Porta Potty at Parks $100
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 10
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
Requested Amount
Amount
Recommended
Fern Hill $1,505
$1,505 $290 Movie Night
$305 Neighborhood BBQ
$290 Movie Night
$295 Fall Festival
$325 Jewish Community Outreach
Lake Forest $1,205
$1,205 $610 Neighborhood Annual Social Party
$265 National Night Out Block Parties
$125 Neighborhood Entrance Fence Repair
$55 General Association Supplies
$150 Neighborhood Garden Upkeep
$100 Environmental: Compostable supplies $100
Requested Amount Lenox $1,700
$1,900 $600 Neighborhood Newsletters Cut $200 for
promotional
mailing (suggested
hand delivering
spring mailing)
$450 Spring Social
$400 Summer Picnic & Volunteer Project
$450 Fall/Winter Social
$100 Environmental Component: Aluminum
refillable water bottle, customize with
Lenox Neighborhood design
$100
Minikahda Oaks $2,000
$2,000 $600 National Night Out/Annual Picnic/Meeting
$400
Neighborhood Beautification and
Landscaping
$300
Spring Egg Hunt & Neighborhood Clean
Up
$400 Fall Festival
$300 Holiday Progressive Dinner
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Environmental Component: Bass Lake
Park Improvements $100
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 11
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
Requested Amount
Amount
Recommended
Minikahda Vista $1,349
$1,669 $100 Annual Meeting & Potluck
Cut $320 for garage
sale
$150 Annual Plant Swap
$320 Garage Sale
$164 Newsletter
$935 National Night Out
$100 Environmental: Plant and Herb $100
Minnehaha $1,875
$2,000 $700 National Night Out
Cut $125 for garage
sale
$700 Parent/Kid Playtime
$125 Garage Sale
$475 Neighborhood BBQ & Halloween Event
$1,950 Environmental Project
$100
Environmental: Neighborhood Clean
Up $100
Sorensen $2,000
$2,000 $690 Neighborhood Newsletters
$705 Annual Fall Social
$290 Annual Sorensen Business Meeting
$240 Webster Park Porta-Potty
$75 Wine & Cheese Fundraiser for STEP
$100 Environmental Experiential Education $100
South Oak Hill $475
$475 $250 Neighborhood Meetings
$225 Summer Ice Cream Social
Westwood Hills $2,000
$2,000 $700 WHNA Family Fall Party
$650 Winter Warm Up!
$300 Service Day/Ice Cream Social
$200 Annual Meeting
$150 Ladies Night Out
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Environmental Component $100
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4a) Page 12
Title: 2014/2015 Neighborhood Grants
$32,677 Total Requested by All Neighborhoods $31,000
$4,400 Total Insurance Request $4,400
$1,375 Total Environmental Request $1,375
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets in Area 6 – Project No.
4014-1206
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Allied Blacktop Company the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$222,695.98 for Street Maintenance Project (Sealcoat Streets - Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve this contract which continues
the City’s street sealcoat program?
SUMMARY: A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Allied Blacktop Company $222,695.98
Pearson Brothers $241,055.29
ASTECH Corporation $242,764.27
Engineer’s Estimate $225,060.60
A review of the bids indicates Allied Blacktop Company submitted the lowest bid. Allied
Blacktop is a reputable contractor that has worked for the City before. Staff recommends that a
contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $222,695.98.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and included
in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program with an estimated budget of $252,067.87.
Based on the low bid received and other expenses the, total project costs are now estimated at
$249,419.50. The expense for sealcoating the local streets will be paid from the City’s Pavement
Management Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Parking Lot Seal Coat 2014 Map
Seal Coat 2014 Map
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets in Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Sealcoating is the surface application of an asphalt material followed by the
placement of aggregate (rock) which is embedded into the asphalt material while it is liquid. The
purpose of this treatment is to add surface friction to the pavement, to seal the surface from
oxidation and protect the pavements from the effects of moisture. Sealcoating can
extend the life of a pavement, in good condition, by 5-9 years. The City’s Pavement
Management Program provides for the sealcoating of each street once every eight (8) years.
Area 6 of the Pavement Management Program is scheduled for sealcoating in 2014. These
streets were last sealcoated in 2006. Area 6 comprises the streets in the Creekside, Brookside,
Meadowbrook, Brooklawns and Elmwood neighborhoods as well as Oak Hill Park, Louisiana
Oaks Park and the Rec Center. Maps of the streets and parking lots to be sealcoated are attached.
Not all streets in Area 6 will be sealcoated. Based on the City’s pavement management software
and visual inspections by City staff, several streets in the area were determined to be in need of
more aggressive maintenance. Sealcoating these streets at this time would be an
inappropriate/ineffective use of resources. Thus, they have been eliminated from this sealcoat
project with the understanding that they will be programmed for higher levels of maintenance or
rehabilitation in 2017, as part of the City’s overall Pavement Management Program.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 27, and April
3, 2014. In addition, plans and specifications were noticed on the City Website and are made
available electronically via the internet by our vendor QuestCDN.com. Email notification is
provided to five minority associations and final printed plans are made available for viewing at
City Hall. Nine contractors/vendors purchased plan sets.
Funding Details:
Based on the low bid received, total project cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Expenditures
Construction Cost $222,695.98
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 26,723.00
Total $249,419.50
Revenues
Pavement Management Funds Total $249,419.50
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
with an estimated budget of $252,067.87.
Construction Timeline:
The work may begin as early as June but must be completed no later than July 31. The
contractor will schedule a week to complete the work within this time frame. Streets will be
posted for “No Parking” beginning the day before work is to occur. Staff will send a notice out
to residents once we get a schedule to inform them of the pending work and parking restrictions.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets in Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206 Page 3
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Maintenance Project – Sealcoat Streets in Area 6 – Project No. 4014-1206 Page 4
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolution to Disburse Remaining Cedar Trails Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Project
Funds
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to disburse remaining Cedar Trails
HIA Project Fund Balance of $16,092 to the Cedar Trails Association’s replacement reserve fund.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support depositing the remaining Cedar
Trails HIA project funds of $16,092 to be deposited into the Association’s replacement reserve
fund, consistent with the Development Agreement?
SUMMARY: The Cedar Trails HIA was established in November 2002 and a Development
Agreement between the City and Association was executed in December 2002. The total loan amount
was $1,365,742. The total project costs came to $1,349,650 with a remaining balance of $16,092.
The improvements included:
• Bituminous Overlay of Parking Lots
• Partial Replacement of Concrete Curbs, Gutters, Islands, Patios, and Sidewalks
• Removal of 1 Wood Retaining Wall and Replacement of 5 Walls with Stone Walls.
• Partial Replacement of Exterior Light Fixtures on Garage Buildings
• Replacement of Roofs on Several Garage Buildings
• Installation of Hardie Fiber Cement Siding on Garage Buildings;
• Replacement on Roofs on Several Buildings
• Partial Replacement of Common Area Acoustical Ceiling Tile, Vinyl Floor Tile, and Interior Light
Fixtures
• Partial Replacement of Washers and Dryers
• Renovation of Pool Building
• Replacement of Oldest Boilers, Pumps, Hot Water Heaters, and Water Softeners
• Partial Replacement of Risers and Branch Piping
• Partial Replacement of Windows and Patio Doors
The Development Agreement allows for the Project Fund balance to be deposited in the
Replacement Reserve Fund for future common area improvements. The Cedar Trails HIA 10
year repayment period is complete and David Stendal with Omega Management, on behalf of
Cedar Trails, requested the payout of the remaining balance which is $16,092.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The project fund has been held by the City
and funds have been disbursed for all construction and all soft costs including the City’s
administrative fee. The disbursement of the remaining project funds to Cedar Trail’s reserve
replacement fund has no impact on the City’s budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Resolution to Disburse Remaining Cedar Trails Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Project Funds
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING PROJECT FUND
BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,902 TO THE CEDAR TRAILS REPLACMENT
RESERVE FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole
or in part from fees imposed within the area; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2231-02 adopted November 4, 2002, the St. Louis Park
City Council (the “Council”) established the Cedar Trails Housing Improvement Area in order to
facilitate certain improvements (the “Improvements”) to property known as Cedar Trails; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 02-117 adopted November 4, 2002, the Council imposed
housing improvement fees on housing units in the Cedar Trails Housing Improvement Area in order
to finance the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City and Cedar Trails Condominium Association (the “Association”)
entered into a Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) on December 23, 2002, establishing a
Project Fund for the Improvements and providing for the application of any Project Fund balance
upon completion of the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the improvements have been completed and there is an excess balance of
$16,092 in the Project Fund; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.9 (d) of the Agreement provides that the Council by resolution may
disburse all or any portion of such excess Project Fund balance to the Association for deposit into
the replacement reserve fund maintained by the Association (the “Replacement Reserve Fund”); and
WHEREAS, the Association has requested that the remaining Project Fund balance be
disbursed to the Replacement Reserve Fund pursuant to the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that disbursement of remaining Cedar Trails Project Fund balance of $16,092 to the Replacement
Reserve Fund maintained by the Association is hereby approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES
March 14, 2014 – 8:00 a.m.
FIRE STATION 2 CONFERENCE ROOM
1. The meeting was called to order at 8:02 a.m. by President MacMillan.
2. In attendance were Commissioners David Lee, Bill MacMillan, and Jim Rhodes. Also
present were Ali Fosse, HR Coord/Staff Liaison; Steve Koering, Fire Chief; Cary Smith,
Assistant Chief; Eric Curran-Bakken, Local 993 Union President; and Eva Hansen, Fire
Lieutenant.
3. A motion was made by Secretary Rhodes, seconded by Commissioner Lee, to approve the
minutes from the February 3, 2014 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
4. The Commission tabled item #3 on the agenda (Certify next name on Firefighter Eligibility
Register) until after discussion of #4.
5. Staff Liaison Fosse presented the recommended changes to the Rules and Regulations of the
Fire Civil Service Commission. The intent of the changes is to improve efficiencies and
require fewer meetings to certify names from an already Commission-approved Eligibility
Register. The agreed upon changes are as follows:
• Housekeeping revisions such as updating the date, grammatical, capitalization, and
punctuation changes throughout document.
• Rule 5, Section 1 (new areas bold/underline, redacted areas strikethrough)
Whenever there is a vacancy in any sworn position in the department, it shall
be the duty of the Fire Chief to notify the Appointing Authority. The
Appointing Authority shall have the discretion to determine when and if to
request a list of names from the Commission to fill the vacant position(s).
Upon receipt of a request from the Appointing Authority, the Commission
approval of the Eligibility Register, the three names standing highest on the
appropriate Eligibility Register shall be automatically certified. It is the
intent of the Commission to automatically certify the top three names of
each approved Eligibility Register at all times. If the persons certified do
not accept certification within seven (7) days after notification of vacancy by
mail or email at their last known address, the next highest name on the
eligibility list shall be automatically certified.
The name of any person certified who declines or does not respond to
notification of the position shall be removed from the Eligibility Register
and the next highest name shall be automatically certified unless the
Commission determines the individual had adequate excuse reason for not
accepting.
The Appointing Authority, in the exercise of his or her judgment, may
appoint any of the three names certified by the Commission as eligible for
appointment. Such appointment shall be conditional upon successful
completion of a psychological and medical exam as well as a background
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes March 14, 2014
2
investigation as determined by the Appointing Authority. If the conditionally
appointed candidate does not pass the psychological, medical and/or
background investigation, the Appointing Authority may request the
Commission to certify the next name on the Eligibility Register shall be
automatically certified.
The Appointing Authority may, in his or her sole discretion, reject up to all
three candidates. When a candidate(s) is rejected, up to the next three names
will automatically be certified.
The name of the candidate appointed shall be transferred from the Eligibility
Register to the Service Register.
A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Secretary Rhodes, to approve the
changes to the Rules and Regulations of the Fire Civil Service Commission as noted above.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Item #3 from the agenda was dismissed (Certify next name on Firefighter Eligibility
Register). Due to action taken above to amend the Rules and Regulations, no certification is
needed as it is now automatically done.
7. To improve transparency and communication, Commissioner Lee requested the commission
be notified when names are removed from the Eligibility Registers. Staff Liaison Fosse
agreed and will send out updated Eligibility Registers when they change.
8. In other business, Commissioner Rhodes commended the City and Fire Department on the
handling of a drowning in an SLP school pool, and the commission discussed the upcoming
vacancy in the position of Assistant Chief. Chief Koering will reconvene the Commission
when he is ready to present a recruitment process for that position.
9. The Commission adjourned at 8:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of Grant to Fire Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting a $1,000 Grant from the
St. Louis Park Community Foundation and Youth Development Fund.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept this grant with the
restrictions on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of grants. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each grant prior to it being expended. In this case, the grant is to be used for the framing
and installation of a memorial piece of the I-35W Bridge at Fire Station 1.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used for the framing
and installation of a memorial piece of the I-35W Bridge at Fire Station 1.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Mark Windschitl, Assistant Chief
Reviewed by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of Grant to Fire Department
RESOLUTION NO. 14-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF A $1,000 GRANT TO THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT FROM THE ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AND
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any grants; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the grants by
the grantors; and
WHEREAS, this grant will be directed toward the framing and installation of a memorial
piece of the I-35W Bridge;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that this $1,000 grant is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the cooperative
construction agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the
construction of a noise wall along the east side of Highway 169 between 14th and 16th Street
West – Project No. 2015-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This action is consistent with previous direction given by
Council regarding the TH 169 Noise Wall Project.
SUMMARY: In March 2011, MnDOT presented the City Council with various options for
future noise walls and access closures along Highway 169. The locations were based on noise
abatement studies and traffic safety initiatives. The plan that was presented included the
proposed noise wall along the east side of Highway 100 from 14th to 16th Street W. (Figure 1).
In January of this year, MnDOT held a public meeting on the project and received positive
feedback from residents. At the February 18 City Council meeting, the Council adopted
Resolution No. 14-029 supporting the noise wall project and committing funds for the City’s
share of the cost. MnDOT staff has completed final plans and cost estimates for this project.
This agreement is needed for MnDOT to proceed with construction of the noise wall along the
east side of Highway 169 from 14th to 16th Street W. (Figure 1).
Construction is scheduled to begin in August 2014. To build the wall, the contractor will use 16th
Street for access to MnDOT right- of- way. For safety, MnDOT is closing the 16th street access
for the duration of the project, approximately 3 months. The City of St. Louis Park
Engineering staff will coordinate notifying the adjacent neighborhoods in July ahead of the
project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The noise wall north of 16th Street is a
MnDOT led project with an estimated cost of $447,424.13. In accordance with MnDOT’s noise
wall policy the City is responsible for 10% of the project cost, approximately $44,742.41 and 8%
engineering for the City’s share of the costs, for a total of $48,321.81. State Aid funds will be
used for the City’s share of this project.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Cooperative Construction Agreement
Figure 1 – Noise Barrier Graphic
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -____
TH 169 – NOISE WALL COOPERATIVE
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
NO. 05877
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”) is undertaking the
construct a noise wall along the east side of Highway 169 from 14th to 16th Street W.; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the noise wall is estimated to be $447,424.13; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with MnDOT’s noise wall policy the City is responsible for
10% of the cost plus 8% engineering to build this wall, or approximately $48,321.81; the
remaining costs to be paid for by MnDOT;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City of St. Louis Park enter into MnDOT Agreement No. 05877 with the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide for payment by the City to the State of the City’s cost share of the costs of the
noise wall construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and
adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 169 from West 16th Street to West 14th Street within the
corporate City Limits under State Project No. 2772-99.
BE IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized
to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 3
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 4
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 5
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 6
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 7
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 8
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction AgreementPage 9
TEXAS AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
31ST ST
CLUB RD
26TH STMELROSEAVEFRANKLINAVE
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
2 9 T H
S
T 25TH S T18THST
UTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILAAVE2 2N D S T
WAYZATA BLVD
TEXASAVEFLAGA
V
E
FORD RDCEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
16T H S T
WESTWOODHILLSD R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONEAVEBOONEAVE
WE
S
T
M
ORELANDLNUTAHDRQUE
B
ECAV
EX YLONAVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVE22ND LNJORDAN AVEUTAH AVEUTAHAVESUMTERAVEBURD
PL
S TA NLEN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEKILMER AVEKILMERAVEPARKE
RRD
13TH LN
WYOMINGAVEFORD LN
INDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCE AVE24TH ST W VIRGINIAAVE
VIRGINIAAV E
VIRGINIA AVEY U KONAVEGETTYSBURGAVEH ILLSBOROAVEHI
L
LSBOROAVEHILLSBOROAVELANCASTERAVEDECATURAVEDECATUR AVELNFAIRWAYLNENSIGNAVETE X A TONKAAVEPRKR24TH
LN WESTWOODHILLS CRV
BOONECTTEXAS
CIR
FORD
CIR
28TH S
TAQUILAA
VE
31ST
STAQUILAAVEFLAG AVE24TH ST
22ND
ST
14TH S T
FLAG AVE1 6 T H ST
ZINR AN AVE31STST
23 RD ST
18TH ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
24TH
ST
23RD ST
23RD
ST
FR A N K L I N A V E
16TH ST
COBBLECREST CTProposed MNDOT Noise Wall East side of Highway 169 between14th Street and 16th Street
Update 1/14/14by Jack Sullivan
MNDOT Proposed Project
16th St. Noisewall
HWY 394
HWY 169Cedar Lake Rd
MinneapolisGolf ClubGeneral Mills Blvd.Document Path: O:\Pubwks\Projects\Current or Future\2015-0100 Street Proj -TH169 Noise Wall\Photos - Drawings\GIS\16th Street Noise Wall.mxd
NTS
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Approve TH 169 – Noise Wall Cooperative Construction Agreement Page 10
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of City Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the
period of March 29 through April 25, 2014.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to approve City disbursements in
accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the City
Council to review and approve. The attached reports show both City disbursements paid by
physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the City’s Charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: City Disbursements
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
1Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
543.753MFABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
543.75
225.00ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
288.98ACME TOOLS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
288.98
50.00ADAMS, RICHARD INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
50.00
1,165.82ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
38,860.80SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
1,305.20SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
41,331.82
159.51AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
159.51
225.00ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
278.58ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
278.58
456.00ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
456.00
2,983.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
16,580.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
19,563.00
21.00ALLINA HEALTH HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
21.00
135.00AMEMOPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
135.00
20.00ANCHOR PAPER CO IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
649.89SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 2
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
2Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
669.89
810.63ANDERSEN INC, EARL SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
810.63
50.00ANDERSON, GREGORY & CYNTHIA INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
50.00
420.00APAADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
810.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,230.00
515.96APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
515.96
235.25ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
792.44GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
63.05ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,090.74
1,625.98ARCHITECTURAL SALES OF MINNESOTA INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,625.98
331.42ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
331.42
288.54ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
288.54
1,254.25ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,254.25
216.51AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
216.51
623.16ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
599.76MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,222.92
159.95AUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
159.95
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 3
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
3Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
30.74BADGER METER INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.74
228.48BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
228.48
1,440.50BARR ENGINEERING CO SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,440.50
4.98BATTERIES + BULBS ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
89.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.67
1,510.00BEACON ATHLETICS PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,510.00
225.00BERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
212.50BERGSTROM, KRISTEN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
212.50
455.86BERSCHEID, GARY HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
455.86
88.00BEVANDA, LORIS PARK PAVILIONS REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
88.00
20,000.00BFEUSUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGE
20,000.00
84,211.85BLACK & DEW LLC CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE
84,211.85
77.27BLICK ART MATERIALS FABRICATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
77.27
15.99BLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
15.99
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 4
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
4Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
4,340.00BOLTON & MENK INC ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15,788.30STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
29,718.50STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
49,846.80
118.60BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,227.60OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,346.20
3,028.34BRG PRECISION PRODUCTS INC OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,028.35MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
6,056.69
435.88BRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
435.88
510.00BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
510.00
553.84BURRELL TRUSTEE, GREGORY A EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
553.84
228.24CAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY MOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
228.24
6,958.73CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
832.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
1,232.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
160.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
272.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
208.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
9,662.73
23,242.17CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
23,242.17
3,715.00CENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
25,000.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
350.00CES Resid Energy Conservation OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
29,065.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 5
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
5Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
2,652.00CENTERLINE TILE & STONE GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,652.00
9,871.93CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
9,457.39WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
480.82REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
231.80SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
232.33SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
1,846.11PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
247.87WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
344.29NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
22,712.54
5,710.07CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
5,710.07
15,100.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT
15,100.00
261.60CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
261.60
110.00CHUX SCREEN PRINTING WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
110.00
47.93CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
206.28FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
495.79WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
323.92VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,073.92
1,537.74CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16.87ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
1,092.77ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
10.63HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
201.00HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAVEL/MEETINGS
1,594.07HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE MEETING EXPENSE
50.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A MEETING EXPENSE
173.63IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.03FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.99POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 6
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
6Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
7.50POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
804.62POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
30.00POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
31.00POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
98.30POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
74.02DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
9.48SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
139.00ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
99.54OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
440.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
110.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
99.50ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
223.18WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
213.40WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
29.98SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
7,133.25
99.54CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
633.00OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTS
732.54
238.86CLEAR STREAM RECYCLING SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHER
238.86
17,049.39COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
17,049.39
160.50COMCASTIT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS
204.28WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
84.85SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
449.63
1,877.25COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,877.25
2,961.25COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP SUB HENN EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,961.25
152.00COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
152.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 7
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
7Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
95.00CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.00
548.07CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
548.07
208.38CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
208.38
82.65COOKE JP CO INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
82.65
212.50COPELAND, PATRICK GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
212.50
425.00CORONA SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
425.00
110.00COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
110.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
220.00
8,386.20COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,386.20
106.95CROWN STAMP & ENGRAVING SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
106.95
262.11CRYSTAL, CITY OF YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.11
4.28CUB FOODS POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
66.21POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
70.49
146.38CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER POLICE G & A REPAIRS
146.38
3,041.00CUMMINS NPOWER LLC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,166.00SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
6,207.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 8
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
8Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
68.94D&D INSTRUMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
68.94
10,165.40DEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENT
10,165.40
338.73DEX MEDIA EAST LLC ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISING
338.73
62.80DH ATHLETICS LLC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
62.80
233.26DISCOUNT STEEL INC BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE GENERAL SUPPLIES
233.26
2,500.00DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,320.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,820.00
7,301.05DLT SOLUTIONS INC ENGINEERING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
151.22ENGINEERING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
7,452.27
1,227.18DO-GOOD.BIZ INC POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
1,227.18
603.12DRENNEN, DONALD PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
603.12
274.52ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
575.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
849.52
880.25EGAN COMPANIES INC SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
880.25
139.44EISOLD, JASON REC CENTER BUILDING MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
139.44
81.75ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 9
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
9Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
81.75
671.40ELECTRIC PUMP INC SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
671.40
325.41ELECTRONIC CENTER GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
325.41
60.75ELLINGSON, JUDY PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
60.75
58.25EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
58.25
404.26EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
404.26
607.52EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT PARTS
607.52
450.00EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
450.00
400.00ENCORE BROKERS IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
400.00
1,250.00ENVIROBATE METRO PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,250.00
710.64ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERVICES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
710.64
45.70ERICKSON, BREANNA COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A MEETING EXPENSE
45.70
1,439.25ESRIIT G & A TRAINING
1,439.25
2,022.97EXCELSIOR TOWNHOME ASSOC INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MISC EXPENSE
2,022.97
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 10
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
10Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
219.99FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
219.99
231.48FASTENAL COMPANY POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
23.41PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
254.89
386.67FERRELLGASICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELS
386.67
249.00FINANCE & COMMERCE ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
249.00
28,592.00FISCHER BROS LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
28,592.00
200.00FLEX COMPENSATION INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200.00
290.16FORCE AMERICA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
290.16
20.00FORD, GREG WESTWOOD G & A PROGRAM REVENUE
20.00
94.50FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
153.52INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO GENERAL SUPPLIES
248.02
240.00FYSTROM, JOANNE INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
240.00
152.20G S DIRECT ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
152.20
1,575.00GALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES INC, ARTHURFINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00HOUSING REHAB G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 11
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
11Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
525.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,725.00
10,618.17GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
10,618.17
150.00GENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
150.00
96.44GERDE, KATE HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
96.44
61.49GLOBAL EQUIPMENT CO PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
114.95PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
3,235.80PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
3,412.24
43.00GLOCK INC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
43.00
70.00GLOWING HEARTH & HOME INSPECTIONS G & A FIRE ALARM & SPRINKLER
70.00
4,081.53GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSUR
4,081.53
285.65GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
285.65
201.00GOTHBERG, BRIDGET HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAINING
201.00
330.00GRAFIX SHOPPE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
330.00
300.14GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
611.32GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
911.46
700.00GRANICUS INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
700.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 12
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
12Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
33,826.00GRANT'S PRECISION PAINTING LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
33,826.00
651.10GREENLIFE SUPPLY LLC WEED CONTROL SMALL TOOLS
651.10
80.00GROTH SEWER & WATER INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
100.00ENGINEERING G & A PUBLIC WORKS
180.00
250.00HALSTEN, BEN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
75.04HANSEN, SHANNON PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
75.04
35.00HARCEY, MICHAEL POLICE G & A MOTOR FUELS
35.00
21,553.13HARDRIVES INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
7,397.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
28,950.13
2,912.67HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,912.67
58.80HEDDLE, ALLEN DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
58.80
3,500.00HEGMAN, DANA EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
3,500.00
708.13HEISER, DEBRA ENGINEERING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
708.13
2,568.00HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER OPERATIONS TRAINING
2,568.00
41.50HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
41.50
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 13
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
13Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
500.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES
20,024.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
2,700.00PARK IMPROVEMENT G & A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
2,290.30WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,290.30SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,580.60STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,161.20PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
41,546.40
269.90HENRICKSEN PSG FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER
269.90
5.00HOFFMAN REFRIGERATION & HEATING INSPECTIONS G & A STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE
52.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
57.00
12,400.00HOGAN, BRIAN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
12,400.00
24.19HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
315.06GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.87ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.92ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
42.88DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
11.67DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
258.10INSTALLATIONSMALL TOOLS
8.44INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
11.28PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,189.54PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
67.31WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
44.19SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
32.83-PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.13PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
29.97PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.99INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,045.71
195.00HOWES, JEFFREY VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
195.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 14
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
14Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
600.00HRGREENTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
600.00
1,632.55I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,632.55
45.00IATNVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
45.00
311.45IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
311.44SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
311.44SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
311.44STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,245.77
127.95INDELCOFABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
127.95
4,367.50INFRASTRUCTURE TECH INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
900.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
5,267.50
2,264.69INTEGRA TELECOM IT G & A TELEPHONE
2,264.69
1,245.00INTOXIMETERS INC POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
1,245.00
79.99INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
79.99
402.81I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
402.81
5,000.00JACOBSON, CORRINE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
5,000.00
20.00JAEB, THOMAS INSPECTIONS G & A RENTAL HOUSING
70.00INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
90.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 15
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
15Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
8.09JERRY'S HARDWARE DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
42.28WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
44.52PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.89
80.00JOB DONE FACILITIES MCTE G & A TRAINING
560.00SUPERVISORYTRAINING
640.00
3,136.15JRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,136.15
503.08KELLER, JASMINE Z EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
503.08
11.00KELLEY, RYAN COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
6.72COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
17.72
1,170.00KFD TRAINING & CONSULTATION LLC PATROL TRAINING
1,170.00
200.00KING, RYAN INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
200.00
50.00KLEIN, SCOTT INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
50.00
1,026.80KNOLLWOOD MALL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
1,026.80
2,500.00KOTHRADE SEWER WATER & EXCAVATING INC ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
120.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
2,620.00
190.36KRUGE-AIR INC BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
190.36
750.00KURTH, TONIA HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
750.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 16
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
16Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
250.00KUYKENDALL, JAKE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
2,430.00LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
2,430.00
342.33LAWSON PRODUCTS INC GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
342.33
1,157.92LEAGUE OF MN CITIES POLICE G & A TRAINING
1,157.92
250.00LEHRMAN & STEVE PTASZEK, SHARON GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
50.00LEWIS, BARBARA & WILLIS INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
50.00
1,062.72LEWIS, DON EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,062.72
16,042.17LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER
16,042.17
209.00LIFELINE TRAINING LTD POLICE G & A TRAINING
209.00PATROLTRAINING
418.00
1,131.70LINSK FLOWERS MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,131.70
635.70LITIN PAPER, PACKAGING & CONVERTING SOLID WASTE G&A MEETING EXPENSE
635.70
1,336.31LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,336.31
10,595.20LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
10,595.20
534.00LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 17
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
17Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
534.00
95,606.99LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
5,545.21TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
101,152.20
5,618.08LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
165.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
5,783.08
4,250.00LUMA SALES ASSOC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
4,250.00
15,000.00LUMLEY, ROSS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
15,000.00
50.00LUNDBERG AMERICAN LEGION, FRANK INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
50.00
5,981.37MAACO AUTO PAINTING UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
5,981.37
1,225.98MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,640.26SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
2,866.24
27,358.80MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
25.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
27,383.80
13,960.64MARCSTONEPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER
13,960.64
41,053.11-MCCROSSAN INC, C S STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
821,062.16CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
780,009.05
93.88MENARDSPARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
204.80PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1.42PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
518.08BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 18
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
18Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
146.21WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
964.39
1,035.90METRO SALES INC POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,035.90
456.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
228.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
684.00
9,840.60METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
299,953.92SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
309,794.52
2,376.00MHSRC/RANGE POLICE G & A TRAINING
2,376.00
56.95MICRO CENTER PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
56.95
6,100.00MID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6,100.00
2,945.85MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,945.85
488.50MIDWEST TESTING LLC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
488.50
399.60MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
399.60
129.07MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
129.07
250.00MINNESOTA BUREAU CRIMINAL APPREHENSION POLICE G & A TRAINING
250.00
21,558.00MINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
32.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
50.00REILLY BUDGET LICENSES
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 19
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
19Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
21,640.00
3,706.15MINNESOTA DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3,706.15
55.00MINNESOTA DEPT TRANSPORTATION SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
55.00
110.00MINNESOTA FIRE SVC CERT BD OPERATIONS TRAINING
110.00
16.00MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
16.00
43.14MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
43.14
4,000.00MOBIUS INC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,000.00
1,860.00MRA-THE MANAGEMENT ASSOC OPERATIONS TRAINING
1,860.00
190.00MRPABASKETBALLSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
190.00
150.00MSANISUPPORT SERVICES TRAINING
150.00
1,727.94MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,727.94
180.00MUNICI-PALS PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
60.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
240.00
212.50MUTCHLER, FRED GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
212.50
280.00MVTL LABORATORIES REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
280.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 20
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
20Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
273.39NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16.98GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.37
539.61NATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
539.61
124.95NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
124.95
15,609.38NORTHEAST TREE INC TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,609.38
2,115.04NORTHERN DEWATERING INC SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,115.04
500.00OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
6,000.00OAKWOOD PARTNERS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
6,000.00
102.10OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
190.35HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
37.10-HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL SUPPLIES
96.06FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
119.72POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
82.52POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
27.90POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
497.75INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
56.22PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
293.01ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
342.43ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,770.96
50.00ON SITE SANITATION OPEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
98.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
130.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
278.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 21
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
21Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
700.00OSTVIG TREE INC REFORESTATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
750.00OUT OF THE BLUE CREATIVE HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
750.00
4,000.00P&W HOMES LLC ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
4,000.00
75.08PARK JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
75.08
900.00PERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
900.00
18.83PETTY CASH ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
34.46ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
25.00REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT
168.29
51.64PETTY CASH - WWNC WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.56WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
8.34ADULTS 18 - 54 GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.54
175.77PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
175.77
285.00PLEAACLERICALTRAINING
285.00
440.00PLYMOUTH DRYWALL PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
440.00
286.60POPP.COM INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
286.60
220.00POSTMASTERSUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGE
220.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 22
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
22Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
304.18PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
304.19WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
304.19SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
304.19STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
1,216.75
1,754.00PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,754.00
162.00PRINTERS SERVICE INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
162.00
255.00PROGRESSIVE BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
255.00
1,166.35PROPET DISTRIBUTORS INC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,166.35
12,200.00PUBLICSTUFF INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
12,200.00
143.00PUMP & METER SERVICE GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
143.00
171.00Q3 CONTRACTING SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
171.00
47.97R & R SPECIALTIES ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT PARTS
47.97
525.00RAINBOW TREECARE TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
525.00
2,593.21RANDY'S SANITATION INC FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,310.61REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,903.82
5,609.75REACH FOR RESOURCES INC COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,609.75
134.71REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 23
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
23Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
45.44POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.99POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
191.14
580.00REID & ASSOCIATES, JOHN E POLICE G & A TRAINING
580.00
5,823.72RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
5,823.72
14.47RIGID HITCH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
14.47
2,270.68RMR SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,270.68
116.37ROSA, NATE ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
116.37
49.70ROSENBAUER MINNESOTA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
995.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
477.00PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,521.70
268,429.00ROSENBAUER SOUTH DAKOTA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
268,429.00
278.00ROTARY CLUB OF SLP ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
90.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
188.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
556.00
1,000.00ROYTBURG, YANA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,000.00
1,125.00RTVISION INC ENGINEERING G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
1,125.00
200.00RYAN ELECTRIC INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
200.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 24
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
24Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
20.00SAARELLA, JON INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
20.00
10,595.00SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,595.00
80.00SAFE-FAST INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
80.00
225.00SALA ARCHITECTS INC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
61.97SAM'S CLUB ORGANIZED REC G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
61.97
1,816.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,816.00
572.54SCAN AIR FILTER INC REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
572.54
630.00SCHOEBEN'S WINDOW CLEANING SERVICE GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
630.00
80.10SHADE, JOHN & HIROKO REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
80.10
83.77SHER, NEAL REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
83.77
2,283.20SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO PAINTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,283.20
11.20SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
56.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
77.20
185.00SHRMHUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
185.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 25
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
25Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
390.00SIGN PRODUCERS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
390.00
191.00SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
191.00
1,400.00SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,400.00
66.00SKALLET, DAVID INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
66.00
175.04SKELLY, ANGELA HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
175.04
1,487.67SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,487.67
512.50SMITH, ALISON GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
512.50
86.24SMITH, TIM OPERATIONS TRAINING
86.24
1,489.92SPRINTIT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS
1,489.92
488.82SPS COMPANIES INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
9.78-SEWER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
86.66PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1.73-PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
563.97
655.00STAFFORD, RICK WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
655.00
250.00STAHL, DOUGLAS & KRISTINE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
180.00STANLEY ACCESS TECH LLC REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
180.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 26
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
26Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
368.86STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
368.86
1,139.96STREICHER'S GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
254.83POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,394.79
2,110.06SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,110.06
5,197.37SWAN COMPANIES PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,197.37
3,600.00SWENSON, STEVEN PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,600.00
292.96TAPCOPAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
292.96
27.53TARGET BANK POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
27.53
1,681.00TARPS INC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
364.05PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,045.05
35.00TEICHNER, CAROLYN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
35.00
10.00TERMINIX INT PARK MAINTENANCE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
69.50BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
69.50WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
97.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
246.00
3,104.88THE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,104.88
132.30THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
132.30
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 27
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
27Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
791.06THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
791.06
798.00TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
798.00
374.36TOWMASTERGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
374.36
1,500.00TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,500.00
75.00TREE CARE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
75.00
225.00TREHUSMOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
695.17TRI STATE BOBCAT UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
695.17
17,500.00TWIN CITIES PUBLIC TELEVISION HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17,500.00
2,018.54TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,018.54
2,789.44TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,825.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,766.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
32,380.44
30.00TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
30.00
2,524.16U + B ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,524.16
1,500.00UDERMANN, MATTHEW OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,500.00
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 28
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
28Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
720.00UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
354.52FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
3,275.00POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A POLICE EQUIPMENT
6,220.46CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S PREPAID EXPENSES
3,420.60MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,990.58
88.25UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
88.25
45.00UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
580.38SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
5,585.46PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
12.00RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,223.48COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
8,446.32
300.00UNITED STATES TREASURY EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
300.00
260.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY
260.00
450.00UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGISTRAR PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TRAINING
450.00
525.00UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
525.00
80.00UPTOWN REALTY & MANAGEMENT INSPECTIONS G & A RENTAL HOUSING
80.00
20.00US HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
768.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
788.00
314.27USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC OPERATIONS TELEPHONE
314.27
15,297.91VALLEY-RICH CO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 29
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
29Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
15,297.91
143.92VAUGHAN, JIM ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
143.92
143.05VCA CEDAR ANIMAL HOSPITAL WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
143.05
100.00VERIZON WIRELESS POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,373.88CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
74.38CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
3,548.26
378.68VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
378.68
2,344.99VOICE AND DATA NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,344.99
3,125.96-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
123,580.30SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
62,220.22SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
49,068.60SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
231,743.16
1,645.60WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,645.60
2,173.25WEBER ELECTRIC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,173.25
50.00WELD & SONS PLUMBING INC INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
50.00
252.00WHEELER HARDWARE GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
252.00
1,374.48WHEELER LUMBER LLC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,374.48
900.00WHITE ROCK CONSULTANTS SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 30
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
30Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
900.00
50.00WILDER RESEARCH HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAINING
50.00
3,768.75WRAP CITY GRAPHICS INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,768.75
2,292.00WSB ASSOC INC ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,292.00
32,683.70XCEL ENERGY GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
22.77OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
26,842.38PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
29,238.90WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,036.21REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,767.60SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,027.51STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,212.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
29.24BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
53.45WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
415.19WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
15,608.18ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
116,937.69
22,389.85YOCUM OIL CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
22,389.85
569.53ZACKS INC PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLS
569.53
264.35ZANDER, LOIS HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
264.35
148.55ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
148.55
95.19ZEP MFG GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.19
83.91ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 31
4/28/2014CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:54:53R55CKS2 LOGIS400
31Page -Council Check Summary
- 4/25/20143/29/2014
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
490.60GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
574.51
228.10ZIP PRINTING WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
542.00SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
228.11PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
104.94ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,103.15
35.00ZURN, ANN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
35.00
Report Totals 2,880,002.93
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 32
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 5, 2014 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich,
Charlie Dixon (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Ryan Kelley, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Chair Robertson welcomed Joe Tatalovich, the new school board representative to the
Planning Commission. Commissioner Tatalovich stated he has been on the school board
for two years. He said he is replacing Larry Shapiro on the Planning Commission. He
commented that Mr. Shapiro was a school board member for eight years and was a great
colleague. Commissioner Tatalovich said he was pleased to be joining the Commission.
2. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 2013
Commissioner Carper noted that the minutes should be corrected to read that
Commissioner Shapiro arrived at 6:05 p.m. rather than 5:35 p.m. He moved approval of
the minutes as corrected. Chair Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed
on a vote of 3-0-2 (Johnston-Madison and Person abstained).
3. Public Hearings
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Anaerobic digesters
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 14-01-ZA
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the
amendments would create new definitions for food waste, yard waste, organic material
and anaerobic digesters. The amendments would also allow anaerobic digesters in the I-
G General Industrial District by conditional use permit. The amendments are in
response to a specific project concept presented to the City by PLACE for a sustainable
mixed-use development at the site of the former McGarvey plant. Mr. Kelley provided
background information on anaerobic digesters and power generation.
Mr. Kelley noted that staff proposes to delete language regarding unloading and loading
areas in condition (10) c. from the draft ordinance.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014
Mr. Kelley stated that Naresh Pallegar and Bob Ashmun from PLACE are available for
questions.
Commissioner Kramer said he pictured anaerobic process as being extraordinarily slow.
He said the proposal implies there is quantity and speed involved. He asked for further
explanation.
Mr. Kelley responded that the maximum allowed would be 30,000 tons of material per
year. PLACE is hoping to receive a contract from Hennepin County for their organics.
That material would not be anywhere close to the 30,000 ton maximum. He added that at
30,000 tons there would be an average of two to six trucks per day. Once it is delivered
into the digester system it takes 21 days for the material to break down.
Naresh Pallegar, PLACE, explained why the breakdown of landfill material is much
slower than that of a digester system.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what type of waste is being discussed.
Mr. Kelley responded indicating the organic material allowed would be limited to food
waste and yard waste. He added that material will be pre-sorted to make certain that
material is truly organic and can be broken down.
Commissioner Carper asked about containment barriers, ground water contamination and
pest control.
Mr. Kelley responded that PLACE proposes, and the conditions are based on, no outdoor
storage. All organic material is in an enclosed system. He said sprayers will clean up
the hopper lid or any material which might spill on the floor. Mr. Kelley explained that
the end products are liquid and solid fertilizer so there is no industrial waste water.
Commissioner Person asked about condition (10) e. regarding sorting. He asked why
organic material would need to be sorted and how that would occur within an enclosed
container.
Mr. Kelley stated that material received would be source separated organics which is
generally food waste and yard waste. There is still the possibility that there would be
remnants of non-organic material in that, such as a pop can or pieces of plastic. Material
is sorted in an enclosed auger system prior to going into the digester.
Commissioner Person spoke about condition (10) k. regarding contracts or agreements
being submitted with utility companies. He suggested the condition could include
submission of contracts with other entities, such as Hennepin County or other end users.
Mr. Kelley said the intent of that condition was to see how the outputs would be used.
He said that condition could be amended to include other entities.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked where the flaring of bio-gas would occur.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014
Mr. Kelley answered that flaring won’t necessarily occur but if it did, it would be to burn
off excess biogas and would happen in the bio gas storage and bio gas conditioning
phases. It would also not be visible from off-site. Very likely there would not be an odor
with that.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if enough is known about this process to move
the ordinance forward. She asked if the proposed amendments were comprehensive
enough.
Mr. Kelley stated that extensive discussion has occurred amongst staff. Staff has also
spoken with a number of professors at the Univ. of Minnesota specializing in anaerobic
digestion. Staff has spoken with the plant manager at the Univ. of Wisc., Oshkosh,
where a digester is in operation on campus, within the Oshkosh community. He added
that there are a number of digester units in Europe in close proximity to residential and
commercial areas.
Commissioner Person asked which permits have been applied for. He said the long term
oversight of a facility would be turned over to the county and the state.
Naresh Pallegar, PLACE, said they have applied for the MPCA permit. All controls
would be in place in the building.
Mr. Kelley spoke about discussions currently occurring between MPCA and EPA
regarding rules and classifications between compost facilities and municipal solid waste.
Either a municipal solid waste and/or a composting license may be needed for the
proposed project. Mr. Kelley mentioned other typical permits related to regional
facilities which may be required for the project.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about the qualifications required for workers in
this setting.
Mr. Pallegar said appropriate training would be provided.
Commissioner Carper asked about measurement of contamination from animal scraps,
pesticides and fertilizers.
Mr. Pallegar said there isn’t a plan for measuring that. They are very confident about the
quality of the organic material.
Commissioner Carper asked about explosion hazard and methane gas in a contained
environment. He asked if the Fire Dept. would be involved in evaluating any risks.
Mr. Pallegar replied they are working with Harris Mechanical in the design process to
mitigate any hazards.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Title: Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014
Mr. Kelley said the Fire Dept. has been involved in inter-department meetings of City
staff on this concept. If the project moves forward there will be further discussions with
the Fire Dept.
Commissioner Kramer said the project is in the exploratory stage and he is comfortable
taking a vote on the proposed amendments.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked why there is a 30,000 ton cap.
Mr. Kelley responded that the number is based on the approximate number of residential
units, square footage of commercial space, and truck traffic.
Chair Robertson asked how the building type will be designated.
Mr. Kelley said staff isn’t sure at this time but it is similar to manufacture processing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there is any freight rail siding located near the
site.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, replied that there is some track
storage in the area, but most of it is currently located east of Hwy. 100.
Commissioner Person spoke about zero net energy development. He asked if other
renewable energy sources were being contemplated for this project.
Mr. Kelley said that solar and wind has been anticipated as part of the mix of energy
sources.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Chair Robertson said the amendments would provide new definitions with which to
address new projects. He said there were various regulations, permits and other entities
which would be required for such projects. He added that he felt the proposed
definitions and changes in the zoning ordinance make sense for a future conversation of
projects such as PLACE is proposing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she appreciated the Chair’s comments and felt that
all the questions had been asked to make sure the conditions in the proposed amendment
were complete and thorough.
Commissioner Person made a motion recommending approval of the amendments
pertaining to new definitions related to Food waste, Yard waste, Organic material and
Anaerobic digesters and allowing Anaerobic digesters in the I-G General Industrial
District with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and
the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Title: Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2014
4. Other Business
A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner Johnston-Madison nominated Lynne Carper for Chair and Richard
Person for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
5. Communications
A. Health in the Park meetings – February 20 and March 2
B. Other
Ms. McMonigal said that the February 19 Planning Commission has been
canceled. She spoke about the upcoming public meeting on SWLRT and freight
rail re-route options to be held on February 12 at the St. Louis Park High School.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 5, 2014
Banquet Room, Recreation Center
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Anderson, Terry Gips, Caitlin Glennon, Rachel Harris, Tom
Hillstrom, Renee McGarvey, Cindy Larson O’Neil, Alex Sundvall, Judy Voigt, Whitney
Thesing, Mary Karius, Mark Eilers, Ryan Griffin
STAFF PRESENT: Debra Heiser, Phil Elkin
CONSULTANTS: Mike Lamb, Fred Rozumalski, Barr Engineering Company
GUEST: Matt Metzger, resident
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
2. Feb 5 meeting minutes approved – motion by Commissioner Glennon, second by
Commissioner Eilers
3. Feb 26 meeting minutes approved – motion by Commissioner Gips, second by
Commissioner Eilers
4. Chair Harris introduced Commissioner Terry Gips who presented Part II of The Natural
Step training.
5. Commission took a break at 8:08 p.m. At 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Gips proceeded with
the presentation. The session included a small group exercise focused on The Natural
Step principles. Commissioner Gips concluded the presentation at 9:10 p.m.
6. Communications:
a. Commissioner Glennon shared that the City still has trees for sale.
b. Commissioner Glennon reminded everyone about the High School Science Fair
coming up next week.
7. It was moved by Commissioner Glennon and seconded by Commissioner Sundvall to
adjourn at 9:21 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for St. Louis Park School District #283 (ISD 283) for an addition to Aquila
Elementary, with conditions as recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed CUP consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: A CUP is requested to construct three new classrooms at Aquila Elementary
School.
The property is zoned R-2 Single-family Residence and is guided Low-Density Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan. The lot is 8.79 acres in area. The proposed project meets all zoning and
comprehensive plan requirements.
The St. Louis Park School District (the District) has been experiencing increased enrollment,
placing pressure on current school building capacity. The District is requesting a CUP to add
three one-story classrooms to the existing building to help alleviate capacity constraints at Aquila
Elementary. The building additions will be consistent with the architectural style and materials of
the existing building. The project also includes landscaping enhancements to the property.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Aerial Photo
Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Development Plans
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The school is located in the Aquila Neighborhood. The property is bordered
by 31st Street on the south, the North Cedar Lake Trail and single family homes to the west,
Minnetonka Boulevard on the north and Xylon Avenue on the east.
The school district has
experienced an increase
in enrollment in recent
years which has placed a
greater demand for
capacity, particularly in
the elementary schools.
The School District
added an addition to
Peter Hobart School in
the fall of 2013, and is
now interested in
additions to Aquila and
Susan Lindgren
Elementary Schools, as
well as further expansion
at Peter Hobart.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed addition is one story tall and would be added to the
front of the school, facing 31st Street, on the southwest corner of the building. The addition
would provide three new classrooms, totaling 3,160 square feet, and includes remodeling two
existing classrooms. The exterior materials and design of the new classrooms would match the
existing structure of brick and glass with the same architectural style.
In addition to the building expansion, landscaping will be provided throughout the site. Several
deciduous and evergreen trees will be planted along the northern side of the property between
Minnetonka Boulevard and the ball field, to the west of the building between the parking lot and
playground and to the south of the new addition. A rain garden will also be installed in front of
the school. Three trees will be removed for the building addition and will be replaced according
to the City’s replacement calculation. Elevation drawings and the Landscape Plan are attached
for your review.
The addition does not require any additional storm water management practices to be employed,
and it does not affect City vehicle or bike parking requirements. The District hopes to begin
construction this summer, and have the project completed by January, 2015.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW: Schools are allowed in the R-2 Single-Family
Residence Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. For school uses in the R-2 District, the
zoning ordinance reads:
(4) Education (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
This condition is met.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
This condition is met.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R
district.
This condition is met.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
This condition is met.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
April 23, 2014 regarding this CUP. There was no one present to speak and no comments were
submitted. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
with conditions, by a vote of 4 – 0 – 1 (Tatalovich abstained). An excerpt of the Planning
Commission meeting minutes is attached.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
Aerial Photo
3 Classrooms
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-164 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN EDUCATIONAL
(ACADEMIC) FACILITY WITH MORE THAN 20 STUDENTS FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
LOCATED AT
8500 WEST 31ST STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Independent School District #283 has made application to the City Council for a Conditional
Use Permit under Section 36-164 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
permitting an Educational Facility within a R-2 Single Family Residence District located at 8500
West 31st Street for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 14-07-CUP) and the effect of the Educational Facility on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the Educational Facility will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion
nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
Educational Facility is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 14-07-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to allow an addition to the Educational (academic) facility with
more than 20 students at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official
Exhibits.
2. All necessary permits must be obtained, including from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
3. Prior to issuing the building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of landscaping and the repair/cleaning of
public streets, curbs, sidewalks, and utilities.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner)
4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Friday, and 10:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact on surrounding properties.
5. All utilities shall be buried.
6. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative
fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
7. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
8. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila Elementary
EXCERPT OF THE
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 23, 2014 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich,
Charlie Dixon (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, stated that the three applications for consideration are for
elementary school expansions related to conditional use permits for educational facilities with
more than 20 students. He began by presenting common elements for all three projects.
B. Conditional Use Permit for Addition
Location: Aquila Elementary School 8500 W. 31st St.
Applicant: St. Louis Park Public Schools
Case No.: 14-07-CUP
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report. He said the expansion is for a single story,
three-classroom addition and includes the remodeling of two interior classrooms.
He spoke about the landscaping to be added, which includes a rain garden on the
south side of the property.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak
he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion recommending approval of the
conditional use permit, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 4-0-1 (Tatalovich abstained).
PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONSINFILTRATION BASINALIGNALIGNALIGNALIGNALIGN6' WALK6' WALKBUR OAKGREENSPIRE LINDENSKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTSKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTSKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTEXISTING BIKE PARKINGSALVAGED PICNIC TABLE2 - PRINCETON ELM3 - GREENSPIRE LINDEN9 - GLOSSY BLACK CHOKEBERRY7 - JIM DANDY WINTERBERRY3 - GLOSSY BLACK CHOKEBERRY10 - LITTLE BLUESTEM28 - NEW ENGLAND ASTER13 - NEW ENGLAND ASTER11 - BLUE VERVAIN12 - PRAIRIE BLAZING STAR14 - BLACK-EYES SUSANLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129EXISTING PARKING COUNTS (87 TOTAL STALLS):SITE PERIMETER ~ 2517' = 51 TREESTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 3,160 SFNUMBER OF EXISTING CLASSROOMS IN THE SCHOOL: 26NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS ADDED: 3EXISTING BIKE PARKING COUNTS: 52 STALLSEXISTING ENROLLMENT: 520 STUDENTSSITE STATISTICS:LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)BASELINE FOR DIMENSIONSPROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED SOD LIMITSPROPOSED SHRUB / MULCH BED1C211INFILTRATION AREACONSTRUCTION NOTESINFILTRATION AREA CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:1. INFILTRATION AREA LIMITS SHALL BE SURVEYED AND A VISUAL BARRIER, SUCH AS ORANGE SNOW FENCE, SHALL BEPLACED AROUND THE FULL PERIMETER TO KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STOCKPILESOUT OF THE PROPOSED INFILTRATION AREA. THE VISUAL BARRIER MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE NEW CONSTRUCTIONBEGINS AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGH THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.2. DELIVER SAMPLE MATERIALS ONSITE FOR PRIOR APPROVAL. PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE INSTALLATION, SUFFICIENT MATERIAL QUANTITIES SHALL BE ONSITE TO COMPLETE THE INSTALLATION AND STABILIZE EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITHOUT DELAY.3. CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO AVOID CONTAMINATION OF ENGINEERED SOILS WITH SEDIMENT, IN-SITU OR TOPSOIL DURINGAND AFTER INSTALLATION. MATERIALS MUST BE SEGREGATED.4. INSTALLATION WITH DRY SOIL CONDITIONS IS CRITICAL TO PREVENT SMEARING AND COMPACTION. SCHEDULE WORKFOR PERIODS OF DRY WEATHER. DO NOT WORK IF SOIL CONDITIONS ARE WET. EXCAVATION, SOIL PLACEMENT ANDRAPID STABILIZATION OF PERIMETER SLOPES WITH TURF SOD MUST COMPLETED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATIONEVENT. TURF SOD PLACED IN FLOW PATHS SHALL BE SECURED WITH AT LEAST 6 STAKES PER SQUARE YARD. PLACESTAKES ALONG UPHILL SEAM EDGES TO PREVENT UNDERMINING FLOWS UNTIL SOD ROOTS ESTABLISH.5. DO NOT LEAVE STORMWATER AREAS AND / OR PERIMETER SLOPES EXPOSED OVERNIGHT. SECURE THE SITE FROM RISKOF PRECIPITATION DAMAGES AT THE END OF EVERY WORK DAY. IN THE EVENT OF RAIN, TAKE ACTION TO DIVERTSTORMWATER AWAY FROM THE WORK AREA AND TEMPORARILY COVER OF ALL EXPOSED SOILS WITH FILTER FABRICOR IMPERMEABLE SHEETING.6. FIELD OBSERVATION OF EXCAVATION AND SOIL PLACEMENT IS REQUIRED. NOTIFY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TODIGGING. USE BACKHOE WITH TOOTH BUCKET FOR CELL EXCAVATION TO AVOID COMPACTING OR SMEARING OF SOILS.(DO NOT USE SKID STEER FOR EXCAVATION WITHIN THE CELL) USE TOOTH BUCKET TO SCARIFY (RIP) UNDERLYINGSOILS 6" TO 9" DEEP TO REMOVE COMPACTION. GENTLY MIX THE FIRST LIFT OF ENGINEERED SOILS WITH THE LOOSENEDUNDERLYING SOILS TO AVOID STRATIFICATION AND PROMOTE PERMEABILITY. USE EXCAVATOR BUCKET TO PLACEMATERIALS. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED INTO THE STORMWATER AREAS. LEVELING ANDFINAL GRADING WITHIN THE CELL MUST BE COMPLETED BY HAND.7. INFILTRATION AREA SOIL MIX SHALL BE MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANUAL 4.1.2 MIX B: ENHANCED INFILTRATIONBLEND (WELL BLENDED MIXTURE OF 70% ASTM C-33 COARSE WASHED SAND (MN/DOT 3126) AND 30% MN/DOT 3890GRADE 2 LEAF LITTER COMPOST. THE MATERIAL SUPPLIER SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE COMPOST HASBEEN SAMPLED AND TESTED AS REQUIRED BY THE SEAL OF TESTING ASSURANCE (STA) PROGRAM OF THE UNITEDSTATES COMPOSTING COUNCIL (USCC) AND A GRADATION SIEVE ANALYSIS FOR THE WASHED SAND. THE ENGINEEREDSOIL SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY TOPSOIL OR FILTER AGGREGATE WITH FINES.8. INSTALLED SOD REQUIRES A TOTAL OF 1" OF WATER PER WEEK AND ACTIVE WEED MANAGEMENT UNTIL WELLESTABLISHED. WATERING COSTS ARE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO SOD INSTALLATION. CONSTRUCT A TEMPORARYIRRIGATION SYSTEM, CONSISTING OF ABOVE GROUND HEADS, PIPING, VALVES, ETC., FOR WATERING UNTIL VEGETATIONIS ESTABLISHED. DO NOT USE A WATER TRUCK AS THE FORCE OF THE WATER WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THESTORMWATER AREA SOILS.9. REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE DONE BY HAND OR, IF SELF-PROPELLED EQUIPMENT ISREQUIRED, FROM OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER OF THE INFILTRATION AREAS.TYPICAL SECTION THRUINFILTRATION AREAINFILTRATION SYSTEMLIMITS AS SHOWN ON PLANGRASSINFILTRATION SYSTEM SOILMIXTURE - SEE BELOWENGINEERED SOIL MIXTURE FOR THE INFILTRATION SYSTEM AREA:SOIL SHALL BE MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANUAL 4.1.2 MIX B: ENHANCED FILTRATIONBLEND (WELL BLENDED MIXTURE OF 70% ASTM C-33 COARSE WASHED SAND (MN/DOT 3126)AND 30% MN/DOT 3890 GRADE 2 LEAF LITTER COMPOST. THE MATERIAL SUPPLIER SHALLPROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE COMPOST HAS BEEN SAMPLED AND TESTED ASREQUIRED BY THE SEAL OF TESTING ASSURANCE (STA) PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATESCOMPOSTING COUNCIL (USCC) AND A GRADATION SIEVE ANALYSIS FOR THE WASHEDSAND. THE ENGINEERED SOIL SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY TOPSOIL OR FILTER AGGREGATEWITH FINES.6" DEPTHTOPSOILPLACE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG AT EDGE OF INFILTRATIONAREA - FULL PERIMETER , AND REMOVE ONCE ALL UPSLOPEAREAS ARE FULLY STABILIZED (PERMANENT STABILIZATION)LANDSCAPINGEDGING (TYPICAL)FLAT BOTTOM11STAKESTAKEEXCAVATE TO SUBGRADEELEVATION WITH A TOOTHEDBUCKET BACKHOE. RIP SOILS 6"TO 9" TO REMOVE COMPACTION3" DEPTH MIN. SHREDDEDWOOD MULCH (MnDOT TYPE 6)PLANTS WITH MULCHROOT BALLOR POTRAIN GARDEN SOIL MIXTURE- SEE BELOWNOTES:1. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST INSPECT AND APPROVE FINISH GRADING BEFORECONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH SODDING.2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED. SOD SHALL BECOMPOSED OF NOT LESS THAN 60 PERCENT KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS.3. WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING TURF, EXISTING TURF EDGE SHALL BE CUT TO ALLOW FORA CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED OR UNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINT BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TOALLOW NEW SOD SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.6. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NOADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.7. BEGIN TURF ESTABLISHMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SODDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATION FORPROCEDURE.8. ALL TREES TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED.9. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL RECEIVE 4" DEPTH OF CLEAN SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NO. 1 QUALITY, NURSERY GROWN AND SPECIMENS MUST BEMATCHED. ALL OVERSTORY TREES ADJACENT TO DRIVE AND IN PARKING LOT SHALL BEGINBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'.City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila ElementaryPage 8
PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONSBUR OAKGREENSPIRE LINDENSKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTSKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTSKYLINE HONEYLOCUST2 - PRINCETON ELM3 - GREENSPIRE LINDEN2 - BUR OAK1 - PRINCETON ELM4 - AUSTRIAN PINE9 - GLOSSY BLACK CHOKEBERRY7 - JIM DANDY WINTERBERRY3 - GLOSSY BLACK CHOKEBERRY10 - LITTLE BLUESTEM28 - NEW ENGLAND ASTER13 - NEW ENGLAND ASTER11 - BLUE VERVAIN12 - PRAIRIE BLAZING STAR14 - BLACK-EYES SUSANLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)BASELINE FOR DIMENSIONSPROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED SOD LIMITSPROPOSED MINERAL SOD LIMITS1C2.11City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila ElementaryPage 9
AQUILA ELEMENTARYCity Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8a) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Aquila ElementaryPage 10
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for St. Louis Park School District #283 (ISD 283) for an
addition to Peter Hobart Elementary, with conditions as recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed amendment to the CUP consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: A Major Amendment to the CUP is requested to construct three new classrooms
and expand the cafeteria at Peter Hobart Elementary School.
The property is zoned R-2 Single-family Residence and is guided Civic in the Comprehensive
Plan. The lot is 4.66 acres in area. The proposed project meets all zoning and comprehensive
plan requirements.
The St. Louis Park School District (the District) has been experiencing increased enrollment
placing pressure on current school building capacity. The District is requesting an amendment to
the CUP to add classrooms and cafeteria space onto the existing building to alleviate capacity
constraints at Peter Hobart Elementary. The project includes a two-story, two classroom
addition, a one-story kindergarten classroom addition, expansion of the cafeteria, reconfiguration
of the loading dock and landscaping enhancements. The additions will be consistent with the
architectural style and materials of the existing building.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Aerial Photo
Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Development Plans
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The school is located in the Bronx Park Neighborhood. The property is
bordered by 26th Street on the south, the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and Burlington
Northern Railroad on the north and City park land on the east and west.
The school district has experienced
an increase in enrollment in recent
years which has placed a greater
demand on capacity, particularly in
the elementary schools. The School
District added a two-story, two
classroom addition in the fall of
2013. It is now interested in further
expansion to help alleviate capacity
issues at the school.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The
project includes three additions to
the school. A two-story addition
would be added to the northwest
corner of the building, opposite of
the recent addition, and extend into the adjacent asphalt area west of the school. The addition
would provide two classrooms, one on each level, and total approximately 2,000 square feet. The
exterior materials and design of the new classrooms would match the existing structure of brick
and glass with the same architectural style. A new kindergarten classroom is proposed on the
southwest corner of the building and would be one-story in height and approximately 1,500
square feet. The project also includes an addition of just over 2,000 square feet to the cafeteria
and redesign of the loading dock on the east side of the building.
In addition to the building expansions, landscaping will be provided with the planting of several
shade trees along the southwest side of the building and a rain garden in this same area.
Elevation drawings and landscape plan are attached for your review.
The addition does not require any additional storm water management practices to be employed,
and it does not affect City vehicle or bike parking requirements. The District hopes to begin
construction this summer, and have the project completed by January, 2015.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW: Schools are allowed in the R-2 Single-Family
Residence Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. For school uses in the R-2 District, the
zoning ordinance reads:
(4) Education (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
This condition is met.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
This condition is met.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R
district.
This condition is met.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
This condition is met.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
April 23, 2014 regarding this CUP. There was no one present to speak and no comments were
submitted. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
with conditions, by a vote of 4 – 0 – 1 (Tatalovich abstained). An excerpt of the Planning
Commission meeting minutes are attached.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
Aerial Photo
2-Stories
2 Classrooms
Kindergarten
Classroom
Cafeteria
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 13-119
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 13-
119 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 19, 2013 AND GRANTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
UNDER SECTION 36-164 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE
CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW EDUCATIONAL
(ACADEMIC) FACILITIES WITH MORE THAN 20 STUDENTS AT 6500
WEST 26TH STREET
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Independent School District #283 has made application to the City
Council for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit under Section 36-164 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow the addition of three classrooms and an expansion of the
cafeteria at 6500 West 26th Street within a R-2 Single Family Residence District having the
following legal description:
(Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 3643873)
All that part of the East 427.4 feet of the Southeast One-Quarter of the Northeast
One-Quarter (SE ¼ of NE ¼) of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, lying
Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway, and
Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and thirty-three (33) feet Westerly of the
following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of the Southeast One-
Quarter of the Northeast One-Quarter (SE ¼ of NE ¼) of said Section 8; thence
north along the East line of said Quarter-Quarter, 123.0 feet; thence on a tangential
curve to the left with a radius of 337.03 feet, delta angle 47 degrees 00 minutes for a
distance of 276.47 feet; thence on a line tangent to last described curve for a
distance of 107.0 feet; thence on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of
343.08 feet, delta angle 32 degrees 30 minutes for a distance of 194.61 feet; thence
on a line tangent to last described curve for a distance of 76.0 feet and there
terminating.
AND
(Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 5327796)
All that part of the east 472.4 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, lying southerly of the southerly right of way
line of the Great Northern Railway, except the east 427.4 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 13-29-CUP and 14-06-CUP and the effect of the proposed additions on the health, safety,
and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 13-119 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 19, 2013 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 13-119, to add the amendments now required, and to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Case No. 14-06-CUP are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 13-119 filed as
Document No. A10025605 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues
and amends a conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of allowing an
Educational Facility within the R-2 Single Family Residence District at the location described
above based on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
2. All necessary permits must be obtained, including from Minnehaha Watershed District.
3. Prior to issuing the building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit
in the amount of 125% of the costs of landscaping, restoration of the construction
access road to its pre-construction state and the repair/cleaning of park property,
public streets and utilities.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through
Friday, and 10:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. Erosion control measures shall be used along all construction related areas.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary
in order to mitigate the impact on surrounding properties.
5. All utilities shall be buried.
6. All City Park Property shall be repaired to the same condition as it was pre-construction.
7. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
9. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
The conditional use permit shall be amended on May 5, 2014. The conditional use permit shall
incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
10. Prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy, the following conditions shall be met:
a. The construction access road and access apron shall be removed and all surfaces
restored to their pre-construction condition.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart Elementary
EXCERPT OF THE
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 23, 2014 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich,
Charlie Dixon (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, stated that the three applications for consideration are
for elementary school expansions related to conditional use permits for educational
facilities with more than 20 students. He began by presenting common elements for all
three projects.
A. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Expansion and Addition
Location: Peter Hobart Elementary School 6500 W. 26th St.
Applicant: St. Louis Park Public Schools
Case No.: 14-06-CUP
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report. He said the request for a major amendment
to a conditional use permit is for a two-story two-classroom addition, kindergarten
classroom, expansion of the cafeteria, and redesign of a loading dock. He noted
that landscaping will be installed on site. Five trees will be removed and six trees
will be planted. Shrubs will also be planted. A rain garden will be installed south
of the cafeteria.
Sandy Salin, Director of Business, St. Louis Park School District, stated the
elementary schools are at capacity as they have experienced increased enrollment
over the last few years.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak
he closed the hearing.
Commissioner Tatalovich noted that as a school board member he would abstain
from voting on all three school applications.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the major amendment to
the conditional use permit, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner
Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0-1 (Tatalovich
abstained).
PROPOSEDCLASSROOMADDITIONPROPOSEDKINDERGARTENADDITIONPROPOSEDCAFETERIAADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS FOR LAYOUTAND DIMENSIONSREFER TO ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS FOR LAYOUTAND DIMENSIONSREFER TO ARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS FOR LAYOUTAND DIMENSIONS29 STALLS47 STALLS5' CONCRETE WALK18.25'RAIN GARDEN5' CONCRETE WALKBIKE RACK CONCRETE PADEXISTING PARKING COUNTS (76 TOTAL STALLS):CAFETERIA SQUARE FOOTAGE: 2,077 SFKINDERGARTEN SQUARE FOOTAGE: 1,513 SFCLASSROOMS' SQUARE FOOTAGE (2 FLOORS): 2,060 SFTOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 5,650 SFNUMBER OF EXISTING CLASSROOMS IN THE SCHOOL: 28NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS ADDED: 3EXISTING BIKE PARKING COUNT: 72 STALLSEXISTING ENROLLMENT: 570 STUDENTSSITE STATISTICS:LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129LEGENDPROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED SOD LIMITSPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCINGPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPERTY LINECity Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart ElementaryPage 9
PROPOSEDCLASSROOMADDITIONPROPOSEDKINDERGARTENADDITIONPROPOSEDCAFETERIAADDITION3 - SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST2 - GREENSPIRE LINDEN1 - BUR OAK891
890
RAIN GARDEN89189210 - MINIATURE SNOWFLAKE MOCKORANGE 8 - LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK 8 - DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE8 - BLUEBERRYDELIGHT JUNIPER8 - LITTLE BLUESTEM12 - BLUE VERVAIN13 - PURPLE CONEFLOWER14 - NEW ENGLAND ASTER9 - BLACK-EYED SUSAN11 - BLUE VERVAIN8 - PRAIRIE BLAZING STARLEGENDPROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREEPROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREEPROPOSED SHRUBSPROPOSED HERBACEOUS PLANTSPROPOSED SOD LIMITSPROPOSED SHRUB / MULCH BEDPROPERTY LINELANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129NOTES:1. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST INSPECT AND APPROVE FINISH GRADING BEFORECONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH SODDING.2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED. SOD SHALL BECOMPOSED OF NOT LESS THAN 60 PERCENT KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS.3. WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING TURF, EXISTING TURF EDGE SHALL BE CUT TO ALLOW FORA CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED OR UNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINT BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TOALLOW NEW SOD SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.6. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NOADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.7. BEGIN TURF ESTABLISHMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SODDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATION FORPROCEDURE.8. ALL TREES TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED.9. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL RECEIVE 4" DEPTH OF CLEAN SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NO. 1 QUALITY, NURSERY GROWN AND SPECIMENS MUST BEMATCHED. ALL OVERSTORY TREES ADJACENT TO DRIVE AND IN PARKING LOT SHALL BEGINBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'.City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart ElementaryPage 10
PETER HOBART -CLASSROOMSPETER HOBART -KINDERGARTENPETER HOBART -CAFETERIACity Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Conditional Use Permit – Peter Hobart ElementaryPage 11
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for St. Louis Park School District #283 (ISD 283) for an addition to Susan
Lindgren Elementary, with conditions as recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed CUP consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: A CUP is requested to construct a two-story, two-classroom addition to Susan
Lindgren Elementary School.
The property is zoned R-2 Single-family Residence and is guided Civic in the Comprehensive
Plan. The lot is 4.27 acres in area. The proposed project meets all zoning and comprehensive
plan requirements.
The St. Louis Park School District (the District) has been experiencing increased pressure on
current school building capacity. The District is requesting a CUP to add two-classrooms to the
existing building to alleviate capacity constraints at Susan Lindgren Elementary. The building
addition will be consistent with the architectural style and materials of the existing building. The
project also includes landscaping enhancements to the property and an underground storm water
system.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Aerial Photo
Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Development Plans
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The school is located in the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood. The property is
bordered by 41st Street on the north, single-family homes to the west and south, and Natchez
Avenue to the east which is also the city border with Edina.
The school district has experienced
an increase in enrollment in recent
years which has placed a greater
demand for capacity, particularly in
the elementary schools. The School
District added an addition to Peter
Hobart School in the fall of 2013, and
is now interested in additions to
Susan Lindgren and Aquila Schools
as well as further expansion at Peter
Hobart.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The
proposed addition is two stories tall
and would be added to the west side
of the school, set into the hillside.
The addition would provide two new
classrooms, totaling just over 3,000 square feet, and includes remodeling the front entrance
providing for more secure access. The exterior materials and design of the new classrooms
would match the existing structure of brick and glass with the same architectural style.
As part of the building expansion, one tree will be removed and one new tree will be planted,
which complies with the City’s tree replacement requirements.
The project also includes the addition of an underground storm water retention system, which
will be placed just west of the new building addition. This system has been reviewed and
approved by City engineering staff.
The addition does not affect City vehicular parking requirements but the site is currently
providing fewer bike parking spaces than required. The school currently has 22 bike parking
spaces on site and needs 32 more spaces to meet City requirements. The School District is
working with the Safe Routes to School Program on planning for bike parking and grant
opportunities for providing the additional spaces. The plans show proof of parking and indicate
an area where future bike parking could be located. Elevation drawings and the Site Plan are
attached for your review.
The District hopes to begin construction this summer, and have the project completed by
January, 2015.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW: Schools are allowed in the R-2 Single-Family
Residence Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. For school uses in the R-2 District, the
zoning ordinance reads:
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
(4) Education (academic) facilities with more than 20 students. The conditions are as follows:
a. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
This condition is met.
b. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
This condition is met.
c. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R
district.
This condition is met.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
This condition is met.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
April 23, 2014 regarding this CUP. One resident was present and spoke regarding previous tree
removals and the presence of buckthorn on the west side of the school property. The Planning
Commission asked the School District to revise landscaping plans to address landscaping at this
western property boundary. A condition has been added to address this revision. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions, by a vote of
4 – 0 – 1 (Tatalovich abstained). An excerpt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is
attached.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
Aerial Photo
2-Stories
2 Classrooms
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-164 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN EDUCATIONAL
(ACADEMIC) FACILITY WITH MORE THAN 20 STUDENTS FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 4801 WEST 41ST STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Independent School District #283 has made application to the City Council for a
Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-164 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the
purpose of permitting an Educational Facility within a R-2 Single Family Residence District
located at 4801 West 41st Street for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
(Per Quit Claim Deed Doc. No. 3676595.)
That part of Lot 7, YALE LAND COMPANY'S GARDEN LOTS, according to the
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said
Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as commencing at the most westerly corner
of Lot 7; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of said Lot 7 to a point
422 feet northerly of the southwest corner thereof; thence deflecting 111 degrees 12
minutes to the left 80 feet; thence easterly deflecting 43 degrees 48 minutes to the
right 297 feet; thence southeasterly deflecting 67 degrees 41 minutes to the right
133 feet, to a point in a line drawn at right angles from a point on the east line
thereof distant 315.5 feet north of the southeast corner thereof, said point being 150
feet west of said east line; thence east along last described right angle line 150 feet
to the east line thereof; thence north to the northeast corner of said Lot; thence
southwesterly to the point of beginning. Excepting from the above described tract,
that part of the north 150 feet of said Lot 7, YALE LAND COMPANY'S GARDEN
LOTS, lying east of a line drawn southerly at right angles from the north line of said
Lot 7, from a point therein 200 feet southwesterly of the northeasterly corner
thereof along the line of said Lot 7. Said north 150 feet to be measured at right
angles to the Northwest line of said Lot 7.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 14-08-CUP) and the effect of the Educational Facility on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on
the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the Educational Facility will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion
nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
Educational Facility is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 14-07-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to allow an addition to the Educational (Academic) Facility for
more than 20 students at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official
Exhibits.
2. All necessary permits must be obtained, including from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
3. Prior to issuing the building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of landscaping and the repair/cleaning of
public streets, curbs, sidewalks, and utilities.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner)
c. A Maintenance Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, between the
School District and the City for the underground storm water system must be
signed.
d. A revised Landscape Plan must be submitted for administrative approval by the
City that addresses landscaping along the western property boundary north of the
parking lot.
4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Friday, and 10:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact on surrounding properties.
5. All utilities shall be buried.
6. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative
fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
7. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permits is granted is removed.
8. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
EXCERPT OF THE
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 23, 2014 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich,
Charlie Dixon (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, stated that the three applications for consideration are for
elementary school expansions related to conditional use permits for educational facilities with
more than 20 students. He began by presenting common elements for all three projects.
C. Conditional Use Permit for Addition
Location: Susan Lindgren Elementary School 4801 W. 41st St.
Applicant: St. Louis Park Public Schools
Case No.: 14-08-CUP
Mr. Kelley stated that the project is for a two-story, two-classroom addition added
to the west side of the school, set into the hillside. The project would also include
remodeling the front entrance for more secure access. He spoke about the
underground storm water retention system which will be added to the west of the
addition.
Mr. Kelley remarked that the school does not meet the City’s bike parking
requirements. He noted that the School District is working with the Safe Routes
to School Program on programs to provide additional bike parking at the site.
Chair Carper asked why this project would have underground water retention
rather than a rain garden like the Peter Hobart and Aquila projects.
Mr. Kelley responded that a rain garden at the Susan Lindgren site might provide
aesthetic value but because of the topography it would not sufficiently control
run-off. An underground system would provide more appropriate control.
Chair Carper asked when the bicycle parking would be brought into compliance.
Sandy Salin, Director of Business, School District of St. Louis Park replied that
the School District is taking into consideration the planning for providing
additional spaces.
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren Elementary
Mr. Kelley added that the plans indicate an area where future bike parking could
be located.
Michael Klass, Project Manager, Wold, introduced himself.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
Kristiana Hengel, 4829 W. 41st St., said her property borders Susan Lindgren
School to the east and south. She said she has no issues with the school
expansion. She said she does have an on-going landscaping issue with the school
which she has never addressed. She said she thought this would be the time to
take care of her landscaping problems.
Ms. Hengel went on to say that buckthorn is located within the area of the
property line, the school’s buckthorn. She said she purchased her home 11 years
ago. Within the first few years of her residence there, the school removed a row
of old growth trees in that area. Ms. Hengel stated that the school never came
back to improve that area. She said that a few years ago the school removed a
number of her trees on the southern border for the project to increase the parking
space at the school. She was given two small maple trees in return. She remarked
that area is also overgrown with buckthorn. Ms. Hengel said she hoped some
kind of non-invasive landscaping could be installed there which would provide
the visual barrier that used to exist with beautiful old growth trees.
Sandy Salin, Director of Business, St. Louis Park School District, asked Ms.
Hengel to contact her so the school can look at what can be done to alleviate this
issue and work together to solve the buckthorn problem.
Ms. Hengel asked how far the staircase will be from her property line.
Commissioner Robertson said he estimated it is about 140 feet.
Mr. Kelley said the building extension is approximately 38 feet, so the staircase
might be 112-115 feet from the resident’s property line.
Mr. Klass commented that he and the civil engineer have recently discussed
pushing the staircase back towards the bridge which is closer to its current
location.
Chair Carper closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Person said the expansion project was a good opportunity to solve
the landscaping concerns of the resident.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
subject to conditions recommended by staff, and subject to providing landscaping which solves
the buckthorn problem. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 4-0-1 (Tatalovich abstained).
352326('%8,/',1*$'',7,215()(572$5&+,7(&785$/3/$16)25/$<287$1'',0(16,21667$//6%852$.4XHUFXVPDFURFDUSD% %
:$/.
:$/.67$,56
(;,67,1*%,.(3$5.,1*$'',7,21$/%,.(3$5.,1*LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129/(*(1'352326('&21&5(7(:$/.352326('0(',80'87<%,780,12863$9(0(17352326('+($9<'87<%,780,12863$9(0(17352326('&+$,1/,1.)(1&,1*352326('0$1+2/(352326('%8,/',1*672235()(572$5&+,7(&785$/3/$163523(57</,1((;,67,1*3$5.,1*&28176 727$/67$//6 727$/648$5()227$*( 6)180%(52)(;,67,1*&/$6652206,17+(6&+22/ 180%(52)&/$6652206$''(' (;,67,1*%,.(3$5.,1*&2817 67$//6(;,67,1*(152//0(17 678'(176$'',7,21$/%,.(3$5.,1*5(48,5(' 67$//66,7(67$7,67,&6 City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren ElementaryPage 9
SUSAN LINDGRENCity Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8c) Title: Conditional Use Permit – Susan Lindgren ElementaryPage 10
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Business Park Rezoning of Properties Near Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave. S., Wooddale
Ave. S., and Belt Line Blvd.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance to
rezone 41 properties for Business Park zoning and approve summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to rezone specified properties
consistent with the Business Park designation in the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: The City Council adopted the new Business Park zoning district in 2012. The
intent of creating this district was to transition from current industrial uses to a wider variety of
uses and allow higher densities in anticipation of light rail transit and development in the station
areas. The district was designed to better meet market conditions by keeping some lighter
industrial uses, allowing some new uses, and permitting higher densities. There are limits on
heavy industrial, warehousing and outdoor storage; the intent was to phase out such uses over
time.
Of the 57 properties designated for Business Park in the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
41 were approved with the 1st Reading for rezoning at this time. The properties that are not
recommended at this time include the area in the southeast quadrant of Belt Line Boulevard and
CSAH 25 which is under review with the SW LRT planning for a park and ride location and for
opportunities as a “Joint Development” site as a part of the LRT project, and some where
property owners expressed concerns about changing the zoning on their property at this time.
The attached map shows properties recommended for rezoning.
Since the 1st Reading for these properties, staff has met with some of the property owners and
discussed changes to the Business Park zoning district that would work better for the properties
and current uses. In the coming months, staff will discuss potential changes with the Planning
Commission and City Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance
Ordinance Summary for Publication
Map of Recommended BP Zoning Changes
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No.) Page 2
Title: Business Park Rezoning of Properties Near Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave, Wooddale Ave, and Belt Line Blvd
ORDINANCE NO.____-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING ZONING BOUNDARIES OF 41 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES NEAR
HIGHWAY 7 AND LOUISIANA AVENUE S., WOODDALE AVE. S., AND BELT LINE
BLVD. TO BUSINESS PARK
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 12-29-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December
17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying 41 Industrial zoned properties near
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue S., Wooddale Ave. S., and Belt Line Blvd. to Business Park
zoning as indicated on the attached map.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-29-Z are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading December 2, 2013
Second Reading May 5, 2014
Date of Publication May 15, 2014
Date Ordinance takes effect May 30, 2014
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No.) Page 3
Title: Business Park Rezoning of Properties Near Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave, Wooddale Ave, and Belt Line Blvd
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-14
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING ZONING BOUNDARIES
This ordinance states that zoning district boundaries will be reclassified for 42 Industrial zoned
properties near Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue S., Wooddale Avenue S., and Belt Line Blvd.
to Business Park.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 5, 2014
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: May 15, 2014
E
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
BP - Business Park
Not recommended for rezoning
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
ZONING DISTRICT
SPL - Split (within >1 district)
POS - Parks & Open Space
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two-Family Residential
R4 - Multiple-Family Residential
RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential
Zoning Map:
Parcels Proposed for Rezoning to Business Park
City of St. Louis Park Zoning
Printed April 30, 2014
City Council Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 8d)
Title: Business Park Rezoning of Properties Near Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave, Wooddale Ave, and Belt Line Blvd Page 4
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Community Center Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on the policy questions noted below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Based on the information provided in this report staff desires
direction on how Council might wish to proceed. Options include:
• Table this item until a later date when more information is known about obligations the
City may face for projects such as SWLRT.
• Continue to move forward with the project by going to schematic design on one or all of
the phases listed, including engineering, soils and survey work.
• Continue to move forward on one or all of the phases by entering into schematic design
without engineering. This will provide more information on building layout and schematic
drawings but not detailed engineering. This is the least costly way to continue to move
ahead.
SUMMARY: The City Council discussed the possible next steps for a Community Center
project at its April 28, 2014 Study Session. There was interest on the part of three of the five
Council members in attendance to move to the next step of schematic design. Concerns
expressed about moving forward related to the need to better understand the financial obligations
the City might face in the future related to SWLRT.
Since two Council members were not in attendance, it was determined that for a topic of this
magnitude it was important to have all Council members present for the discussion. As a result,
the Council instructed staff that this item be placed on the May 5 special study session agenda.
Moving to the schematic design does not commit the City to the project. Rather, it gets us to the
point of more accurate cost estimating and building renderings so that we could gather public
input when the City Council is ready to take that step. The estimated cost for the schematic
design phase is $300,000 to $400,000. The likely source of funds would be the Park
Improvement Fund.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: From the analysis provided by HGA, the
construction of a community center that includes all of the previously identified program
components would cost in the range of $30-50 million, depending on what is built. The assumed
source of funding for a project such as this would be the issuance of General Obligation bonds.
The cost of the project could be decreased by building only a portion of the program content or
by constructing it in phases.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Site Plan
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Update on Community Center Project
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) has acted as the consultant to
assist in the further assessment of a community center project. They have experience in
designing and building community centers around the metro area as well as other states.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The building design and cost analysis were based on
recommendations from the Task Force and include all of the program components that were
desired by the community.
PROGRAM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS: The following program components were
recommended by the Task Force. The data that the Task Force used came from the two surveys
that were done in the community. During this phase of planning staff and the consultant went
through each component to ensure allocation of appropriate space and amenities associated with
each of the items. The following is a list of amenities included in the current analysis:
Gymnasium
The gym is proposed to hold two full-size floors with a drop down curtain in the middle
separating them. There will be a set of bleachers that pull out from the wall on each side. At
this time we are considering a multi-purpose poured floor rather than a traditional wood
floor. There are two reasons for this. First, it is less expensive to build and less expensive to
maintain. Second, it can be used for multi-purpose events including all sports, tricycles and
other equipment used for children events. It can also be used for special events where tables
and chairs are set up without worrying about scratching the wood floors. Staff envisions
programming the gyms as well as having them available for drop-in basketball. The current
gyms in the schools are overused by traveling sports so there is no time for kids and adults to
drop-in and play. We would also like to look at an area in the back of one of the courts where
we could drop in a batting cage similar to what Chaska and other communities do in their
gymnasiums.
Aquatics
The trend in pool construction is to have areas for lap swimming, deep water and leisure/fun
areas. To accommodate that, a lap pool is proposed with six lanes that would have deep water
at one end. The deep water could be used for various events (scuba diving classes, etc.) as
well as hold a diving board and a climbing wall. The leisure pool would have youth play
features and slides with a zero depth entry area. An ADA accessible ramp is recommended
for the lap pool. That will allow all ages and abilities access to the pool as well as allow us to
hold specialty classes for people with MS or those recovering from surgeries. This is another
reason we are exploring a partnership with a physical therapy group. Swimming lessons
could be held at either or both pools depending on the age of kids. At this time, Community
Education offers the swimming lessons at the schools. We would explore a partnership with
them. Because of the cleaning issues associated with a hot tub or spa, staff is not
recommending one for this facility.
Drop-in Child Care
This child care is only for parents and care givers who are using the facility. This is a facility
that can be used by people who are at the building for a period of 1 - 2 hours. We are not
proposing full-time day care.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Update on Community Center Project
Community Room
The capacity for this room wasn’t fully defined in the Task Force process. From the feedback
received from the Council and residents, staff is proposing a room with a capacity of
approximately 250 people. The proposed room would be approximately 4,000 - 4,500 square
feet and hold 55 - 60 round tables. A caterer’s kitchen will likely need to be attached so that
the room can be used by a variety of groups. This room can be reserved for a variety of
functions and events. The Banquet Room at the Rec Center holds up to 160 people. We
receive requests for various events that we are unable to accommodate because of the current
size of the Banquet Room. Staff recommends that this room be designed as a larger room to
allow for other uses.
Commons/Gathering Place
This would be near the front entrance and serve as a gathering place for people in the
community. The furniture would be stationary. A coffee shop/café would be adjacent to this
space.
Kid’s Play Area
The Task Force discussed this being adjacent to the drop-in day care. It was proposed to have
a climbing stationary feature along with a large motor play area with a variety of toys for
kids to play with.
Track
The goal is to make this as long as possible so there are fewer laps to the mile. The track is
shown above the gymnasium and fitness room.
Fitness
The two components of fitness are the exercise equipment and fitness studios where classes
are held. Since the trends in fitness classes change, we want to be able to adapt to those new
classes. We are proposing three rooms: large, medium and small to accommodate a variety of
classes. Actual sizes of the rooms are still being researched. Appropriate storage needs to be
adjacent to the rooms to hold equipment such as mats, balls, bikes, etc.
Party Rooms
One of the biggest revenue generators in other community centers is the ability to hold
birthday parties. Staff is proposing party rooms near the pool and possibly near the Kid’s
Play area.
“Back of House” areas
While the Task Force did an excellent job of synthesizing the survey data and developing
program content, they didn’t spend time on the support areas that make the community center
work. It was understood that this phase of planning would do that. HGA has assessed the
storage needs as well as rooms to hold the mechanical systems, size of locker rooms, number
of bathroom stalls, and length/width of hallways.
Concept Facility Design and Site Analysis
The cost for the designs is more than originally anticipated largely due to the need for
ramped parking because of the site constraints. At this time, all of the costs are included in
the cost estimate including some inflationary costs taking into consideration that this project
would not be built immediately. The only unknown cost that is NOT included in the cost
estimate would relate to soil conditions and the removal of hazardous material.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Update on Community Center Project
Although HGA created a concept design and site analysis on the two sites, per Council
direction, staff has focused its energies on the Wolfe Park/Rec Center site. It was decided
that the scenario that included a community room on the Melrose Site was too expensive to
consider due to the need for a skyway to be constructed over 36th street in order to access the
site from the rest of the Community Center. Under this scenario the basketball court and sand
volleyball court would have to be relocated to the site near the Melrose Center.
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS: Staff has worked with the firm of Ballard & King to
assist with an Operating Analysis estimate. Jeff King took the program components outlined in
this report to design an operating budget and revenue projections. Jeff King has estimated
expense and revenue projections for many community centers throughout the United States. The
annual expenses to operate a facility of this size are estimated to be $1,825,080. That includes
the anticipated increase in full time staff as well as part time staff, utilities, program expenses,
supplies and other miscellaneous items needed to run a facility.
The corresponding revenue projections on an annual basis are estimated to be $1,197,142. The
revenue projections include memberships and daily admissions (anticipating several options) as
well as rental revenue obtained from the community room. The difference is ($627,938). The
anticipated recovery rate is 66%.
Staff also explored the maintenance/operating expenses for parking ramps. Although we do not
anticipate much for maintenance costs the first 1 - 5 years (with the exception of snow removal),
the annual maintenance for parking ramps is approximately $120-$130 per stall per year. If we
are looking at 500 - 550 stalls that is $60,000 - $71,500 per year in ramp maintenance expenses
(plowing, crack sealing, painting, lighting, etc.).
POSSIBLE PHASING SCENARIOS: The building could be planned and constructed in
phases. Future phases of the building could be added at any time. The attached diagram shows
the locations for the possible phases as well as how the parking ramp could be phased in. It is
possible that Council could decide to start with Phase 1 and not build the remaining phases.
Likewise, the other phases could be planned so that they could be added on at any time. The cost
estimates are based on construction costs for 2016. Contingencies are built into these costs. The
only cost not accounted for is soils correction and potential removal of any contaminated soils.
As part of the next step (if any) staff suggests soils and survey work so that we know what costs
would be associated with this. Staff is suggesting the following phasing scenarios:
Phase 1: Gymnasium and dry land wellness components (gym, locker rooms, drop-in child
care, kids play area, fitness equipment and fitness group exercise rooms, lobby, and
community gathering commons). Also included in this is phase 1 of parking ramp. The cost
for Phase 1 is $29,512,655. The parking ramp portion of that is $8,630,092.
Phase 2: Community Room/Banquet meeting room (meeting room to hold 250 people for
large events). Our current banquet room can accommodate 160 people. The idea is to have a
larger meeting room in our City. We do not need another smaller space like the one we have.
With the build out of the meeting space, we would need to add more parking so Phase 2
includes the 2nd phase of the parking ramp. The cost for Phase 2 is $9,782,092. Parking is
$4,715,167 of this cost.
Phase 3: Indoor pool (lap swimming and indoor aquatic feature). Phase 3 is $10,440,760.
Phases 2 and 3 can be interchangeable. The second phase of parking would be required for
either one of the phases.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Update on Community Center Project
FINANCING: Financing for the proposed Community Center would be through the issuance of
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds for the entire cost of the project with an assumed 20 year term
on the bonds. Based on a $30 - $50 million Community Center project, the property tax impact
on a residential homesteaded median value home of $204,700 would be an increase of
approximately $81 - $134 over a two year period, or approximately $41 - $67 increase per year
for the City share of property taxes. This equates to approximately a 8.6% - 14.4% increase in
the City share of property taxes over a two year period, or approximately 4.3% - 7.2% increase
per year. These estimates are only for construction costs of the proposed Community Center and
do not factor in the estimated operating loss, any property tax levy increases for the general
operating levy, or any other significant capital projects such as sidewalks and trails, SWLRT etc.
NOTE: The last time the Council discussed this matter it was requested that staff consider how
new development growth in the community might help mitigate property tax impacts to our
residents and to incorporate that into its analysis. After spending time trying to develop a model
it was determined that there was not a reliable way to do this given many unknowns. For
example, many of our more sizable redevelopment projects utilize tax increment districts, which
actually capture value for an extended period of time. Another example relates to economic
downturns and markets. Attempting to project what might happen in the future is a guess at best.
Having said the above, staff could still incorporate certain assumptions in its estimates of
property tax impacts but would strongly encourage against it as the results would be speculative.
EXISTING REC CENTER CAPITAL ITEMS: It is important to note that the Rec Center has
a number of improvements identified in the existing 5 year capital plan totaling $6.5 million to
be funded from the Park Improvement Fund. The largest expense will occur in 2016 with the
change to a new refrigeration system ($4.8 million). The remaining funds will replace or
refurbishing existing amenities.
NEXT STEPS: The construction of a project of this scale happens in steps. All steps build on each
other. Although they need to happen in order, there can be time in between each step. Nothing is
lost by putting a hold on the project after the schematic design. The first step has been completed
with the feasibility study. If the Council wished to continue moving forward, the next steps to
construction are as follows along with the cost associated with each step on a percentage basis.
1. Schematic Design 15%
2. Design Development 20%
3. Construction Documents 35%
4. Bidding 5%
5. Construction Administration 25%
Additional public process would happen after the schematic design. At that point there would be
building rendering and program content to show the community.
If council would like to proceed with all or just a phase, staff would suggest we work with HGA
to move into schematic design. Depending on how detailed we want to go into design and how
many phases we want to include, the cost to enter into schematic design would be $300,000-
$400,000. In addition, staff would like to look into what information exists relative to soil
borings from the past projects on site. After that is done, this would be an appropriate time to do
more soils work so that we know what actually lies below ground in the area we potentially build
on. We do not have a cost estimate on the soils and survey work. If Council directs staff to enter
into the schematic design of the building, we would come back with cost for this step that would
include soils and survey work.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 2)
Title: Update on Community Center Project Page 6
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: May 5, 2014
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Review of City’s Housing Goals
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide the Council
with a review of the updated City’s Housing Goals based on the housing directions discussed at
the February Council Workshop and the April 21 Study Session. Draft updated Housing Goals
incorporating the Council housing directions are attached for review and discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the draft updated Housing Goals appropriately incorporate
the City’s current housing policy as well as the directions discussed by the Council at the
February Workshop and April 21 Study Session?
SUMMARY: Housing was a primary topic of discussion at the Council Workshop held in
February. Based on the discussion, Council developed a list of housing directions/priorities
reflective of where the Council thinks the City should focus its efforts to meet the housing needs
of the community in the future. Council directed staff to update the Housing Goals incorporating
the housing directions/priorities discussed at the workshop and return to a future Study Session
for Council review. Council also requested that data be provided comparing the proportion of
affordable housing in St. Louis Park to that of similar surrounding communities.
At the April 21 Study Session, Council reviewed the updated Housing Goals. The focus of the
discussion was on the affordable housing goals. Council directed staff to further revise the goals
to reflect the policy direction discussed at the Study Session and return to a future meeting for
further review and continued discussion.
The majority of the housing directions/priorities identified at the Council workshop are
consistent with the policies reflected in the current Housing Goals. The revised Goals maintain
the policy direction of the originally adopted Housing Goals while incorporating the new
directions and streamlining the format. In addition to amending the Housing Goals to capture the
new directions/priorities discussed at the workshop and Study Session, the Goals have been
reformatted to improve the organizational structure by consolidating similar topics.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2005 Housing Goals
Updated Draft Housing Goals
Maxfield Community Comparisons
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Based on the discussion, Council developed a list of housing
directions/priorities reflective of where the Council thinks the City should focus its efforts to
meet the housing needs of the Community in the future. Council directed staff to update the
Housing Goals incorporating the housing directions/priorities discussed at the workshop and
return to a future Study Session for Council review. Council also requested that data be provided
comparing the proportion of affordable housing in St. Louis Park to that of similar surrounding
communities. Background material highlighting housing characteristics, including the quantity
of affordable housing, along with demographic and economic characteristics has been developed
by Maxfield Research. The data provides a resource for further discussion of St. Louis Park’s
Housing Goals, specifically, discussion related to affordable housing policy.
At the April 21 Study Session, Council reviewed the updated Housing Goals. In general, there
was consensus amongst Council members on the majority of the housing policy directions
discussed at the workshop with the exception of policy related to affordable housing. Following
significant discussion, Council directed staff to further revise the Goals to reflect the policy
directions discussed at the Study Session and return to a future meeting for further review and
continued discussion.
The updated Housing Goals integrate the housing directions/priorities identified at the Council
workshop and the April 21 Study Session with our current Housing Goals Since this affordable
housing topic continues to require further discussion, staff suggests that Council’s discussion at
Monday night’s meeting again focus on a review of the affordable housing goals. Time
permitting; the other remainder of the Housing Goals will be reviewed.
Housing directions representing new ideas and policy directions not previously captured in the
existing goals are highlighted in yellow. Some liberty was taken with the precise wording of the
housing directions in incorporating them into the existing housing goals, but an attempt to
capture the meaning and intent of each housing direction was maintained. Also attached are the
existing Goals in their current format for reference.
Current Goals:
a. Housing Summit: The City’s current Housing Goals were developed during the 2003-
2005 Housing Summit process and adopted by the City Council in March 2005. The
Housing Summit was held as a means to educate, revisit, and consider any necessary
changes to the City’s housing policies, strategies, and goals. The Summit consisted of a
series of meetings with a broad base of stakeholders that included the City Council,
Planning Commission, Housing Authority Board, School Board, County Commissioner,
and a business representative. The stakeholders evaluated how existing policies were
meeting the needs of current residents and neighborhoods. As a result of the discussions
held at these meetings, the current housing goals were developed and approved by the
City Council. The Housing Goals are attached.
b. Vision Strategic Direction: In 2006, the City began a second Visioning process. One of
the Vision Action Teams focused on Housing. The Action Teams developed goals,
specific objectives and action plans. In 2007, the Council developed four Strategic
Directions as a guide for the City for the future. These four Strategic Directions continue
to be key guideposts for City actions. One of those Directions addressed housing and
stated the following:
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing
stock. In particular, the City’s focus will be on the three following strategies:
i. Remodeling and expanding move-up, single-family, owner-occupied
homes.
ii. Property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics.
iii. Working towards affordable single-family home ownership throughout the
City.
c. Comprehensive (Comp) Plan: The City’s current Housing Goals were adopted as part of
the Comp Plan adopted in December 2009. The Comp Plan is the City’s official
statement used to guide development, redevelopment and preservation of the City by
setting forth policies, plans and programs governing land use, public facilities, economic
development and urban form. The 2010 Comp Plan documents the City’s housing plan
incorporating Vision St. Louis Park, the City’s Strategic Plan, and the Housing Goals.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Our housing goals do not exist independent or isolated from the rest of our region. The
characteristics of St. Louis Park and the housing trends of the region greatly influence both what
our Housing Goals need to be and what our housing opportunities are. Our current Housing
Goals and the February housing directions/priorities need to reflect those realities.
Some of the key directions that are supported by the basic characteristics of St. Louis Park and
the emerging housing trends are:
1. Affordability of Housing continues to be an issue in the region. The recent economic
recession and downturn in the housing market reduced home prices significantly, but it
also reduced household incomes even more making housing ownership less affordable
overall. Meanwhile, increased demand for rental housing has reduced rental housing
vacancy rates and led to increasing rents. The net result is less affordable rental housing
in the region. Due to the age of St. Louis Park’s rental housing stock, the City does have
a significant supply of apartments offering monthly rents that are affordable to
households earning 50% to 60% of Hennepin County Area Medium Income. In contrast
to existing rental housing, newly constructed multi-family rental developments in St.
Louis Park have been exclusively luxury developments with high rents.
2. Single-family homes are the dominant land use in St. Louis Park. Over 60% of the
private land in St. Louis Park is occupied by single-family homes. Virtually all of our
single-family homes are over 40 years old. Maintaining the vast majority of this housing
stock and the strong neighborhoods in which they are located is a critical community
goal. Ensuring the vast majority of our single family homes are well maintained has been
and should continue to be a core community goal. This includes making sure our single-
family homes have the characteristics that people want in a home. Encouraging both
attractive, quality updating and appropriate expansions of homes should be considered
part of maintaining our single-family housing stock.
3. Opportunities for new housing in St. Louis Park will predominantly be for mixed-use and
higher density housing. St. Louis Park’s central location in the metro area; proximity to
downtown Minneapolis; proximity to lakes, parks and trails; connections to the rich
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals
network of busy regional highways; our compact, relatively pedestrian friendly
development patterns that support urban amenities like restaurants and retailors; and,
existing transit service and future LRT line, all combine to make St. Louis Park a very
attractive place for higher density compact development. St. Louis Park is well suited to
provide housing that meets the shift in demographic trends, energy and environmental
issues, the need for healthier living environments, the trend to smaller families, and the
emerging preferences of “Millennial” and “Gen Y” for urban housing where the
neighborhood coffee shop or restaurant is their living room, for the type of housing; and,
has demonstrated it can be done to a very high standard. This housing may be or may not
be owner-occupied housing. For the city, a critical issue is how to ensure all housing
built in St. Louis Park is high quality housing, whether it is owner occupied or not. In the
end, our opportunity to control whether a home is owner occupied or renter occupied may
be limited and more dependent on the market. The City should continue to focus on
ensuring housing quality whether it is rental or owner occupied.
The City’s housing and land use goals have reflected and should continue to reflect intent
to capitalize on the opportunity we have to accommodate mixed-use and higher density
housing development at key redevelopment opportunity areas like the future SWLRT
station areas, the Park Commons area and the West End. Capitalizing on these
opportunities is a means of increasing the diversity of housing options in St. Louis Park
and integrating housing with employment opportunities.
NEXT STEPS: Based on the discussion at the Council meeting, the Housing Goals will be
revised to reflect the Councils comments. The revised Housing Goals will then be presented at a
future Council meeting for review and continued discussion if needed. Consideration to approve
the Goals will occur following finalization of the revised Housing Goals.
Following approval of the revised Housing Goals, staff will explore potential strategies and tools
that will support and promote the housing directions/priorities identified in the Goals. Staff’s
findings will be presented at a future Study Session.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals
2005 Housing Goals
City of St. Louis Park
City of St. Louis Park Housing Goals
The Housing Summit resulted in a set of Housing Goals that were adopted by the City Council in
April 2005 and incorporated as part of the City’s 2010 Comp Plan. The goals reflect the city’s
housing policy and will serve as guides to direct officials, staff, and advisory boards now and
into the future.
Housing Production
• Promote & facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both
today and in the future
• The City should establish target numbers of units by housing types needed to ensure life
cycle housing options, with housing types disbursed throughout the city.
• The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing
units, but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be
fully satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and
maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single family housing which are large enough
to accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address
this need.
Housing Condition and Preservation
• Ensure housing is safe and well maintained.
• Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational
activities and housing programs related to home rehab, code, and design and safety
issues.
Owner / Rental Ratio
• The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner occupied and
40% rental.
• Explore traditional and non-traditional owner occupied housing options such as, but not
limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises,
3-story homes, multi-generational housing, etc.
Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing
• Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals
with the Met Council should be negotiated to reflect the average percentages for other
first ring suburbs in Hennepin County.
Note: In 2004, the City’s negotiated goal for housing affordability with the Met
Council was that 60-77% of the city’s owner occupied homes should be affordable
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals
for households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income and that 37-
41% of the city’s rental homes should be affordable for households with incomes at
or below 50% of the area median income.
• Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any
one area of the City or any one development.
Large Homes for Families
• Promote and facilitate expansion of existing homes through remodeling which adds more
bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.
• Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and
more bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and
additional amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture)
suitable for families with children.
Senior Housing
• Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors.
Land Use
• Planning Goals:
o Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals.
o Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment
centers.
o Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts.
• Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-
traditional housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is
compatible with surrounding neighborhood.
• Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for
housing and other purposes.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals
Revised St. Louis Park Housing Goals: Draft
Promote and facilitate a balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse
life-cycle housing choices suitable for households of all income levels including affordable,
senior and mixed income housing disbursed throughout the City.
Single Family Homes: The City places a high priority on creating, preserving, and improving
the City’s single family housing stock.
• Promote the creation of family sized, large, owner-occupied, single-family housing homes
with more bedrooms, more bathrooms, more amenities and 2+ car garages through the
expansion of existing homes and through construction of new homes.
• Proactively address blighted housing properties through code enforcement and public or
private redevelopment activities such as acquisition, demo and housing replacement.
• Promote high-quality architectural design standards of homes through the use of good design,
quality materials and superior construction.
Multi-Family: The City is committed to promoting quality high density developments, both
rental and owner occupied, in appropriate locations such as near transit centers, retail and
employment centers and in commercial mixed use districts.
• Promote the preservation and maintenance of existing multi-family housing stock.
• Promote high-quality architectural design in the construction of new multi-family
developments.
• Be proactive in analyzing and guiding redevelopment opportunities for multi-family
developments.
Home Ownership: The City places a high priority on home ownership including affordable
homeownership options. Explore traditional and non-traditional owner-occupied housing options
such as; row houses, courtyard housing, high-rises, 3-story homes, Land Trust and Habitat
homes, and multi-generational housing, etc.
Affordable Housing: The City is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low
and moderate income households.
• Affordable housing should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one
area of the City.
• Support the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing.
• Promote the inclusion of affordable housing opportunities in new developments located near
the Southwest Light Rail Transit corridor and other transit nodes, retail and employment
centers and commercial mixed use districts.
• Future affordability goals with the Metropolitan Council should be reflective of the City’s
existing affordable housing stock as well as City’s future needs.
Preservation, Safety and Sustainability: The City places a high priority on ensuring all
housing is safe and well maintained.
• Preserve and enhance housing quality through code enforcement and the promotion of
housing improvement programs related to home rehabilitation, design and housing safety.
• Encourage the use of green building, energy efficient products, and sustainability in both
single family and multi-family housing construction.
April 17, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michele Schnitker
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Matt Mullins
David Sajevic
Maxfield Research Inc.
RE: Community Comparisons
Introduction
Maxfield Research completed the Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis for the City of St.
Louis Park in June 2013. The study was designed to identify current and future housing needs
in St. Louis Park and help decision makers develop a greater understanding of the city’s housing
market. Subsequently, housing goals and priorities were among the key topics discussed at the
Council Workshop in February 2014. One of the outcomes from the Council Workshop was the
preparation of background information on other first-ring Metro Area communities for
comparison purposes.
Table 1 provides a summary of housing-related metrics that compares St. Louis Park to other
surrounding and inner-ring communities. The identified communities include: Bloomington,
Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Richfield, and Roseville. In most cases data is also presented for
Hennepin County and the Seven-County Metro Area. The detailed summary covers several
components including: demographics, employment, housing characteristics, cost burdened
households, and project based affordable/subsidized housing units. Key points are summarized
for each major component in the table. If you have additional comments or questions, please
feel free
612-338-0012 (fax) 612-904-7979
1221 Nicollet Avenue, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55403
www.maxfieldresearch.com
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 8
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Geographic Area
The geographic area of the peer communities is presented in square miles.
• As depicted in the chart below, St. Louis Park’s geographic area (10.86 square miles) is
larger than contiguous Hopkins (4.11 sq. miles) and similar to Golden Valley (10.55 sq.
miles). Edina and Roseville both have larger land areas, while Bloomington’s land area is
approximately 3.5 times larger.
45
40 38.42
Geographic Area - Square Miles
35
30
25
20 15.97
15
10
5
10.55
4.11
7.01
13.84
10.86
0
Bloomington Edina Golden Valley Hopkins Richfield Roseville St. Louis Park
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 9
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Demographics
This section of the community comparison examines population, households, household size,
household income (average and median), household types, percent living alone, and household
tenure. All data, except for household income (average and median), was derived from the
2010 U.S. Census. The 2013 household income (average and median) data was estimated by
Maxfield Research Inc. based on income trends provided by ESRI (a national demographics
service provider).
2010 Population
• Excluding Bloomington, St. Louis Park’s population (45,250) is among the highest of the peer
communities. St. Louis Park’s population is projected to grow by about 4,000 persons this
decade (+8.6%).
• The City of Hopkins has the smallest population in 2010 with a total of 17,591 people.
90,000
80,000
82,893
Population
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
47,941
20,371 17,591
35,228 33,660
45,250
10,000
-
Bloomington Edina Golden
Valley
Hopkins Richfield Roseville St. Louis
Park
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 10
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Population Density
• Population density is defined as the number of persons divided by the land area (square
miles). St. Louis Park boasts over 4,100 persons per square mile, similar to Hopkins (4,280
persons per mile). However, Richfield has the highest population per square mile with over
5,000 residents per square mile.
• St. Louis Park is denser than the communities of Bloomington (2,158), Edina (3,003), Golden
Valley (1,931), and Roseville (2,432). St. Louis Park is significantly denser than Hennepin
County (1,902) and the Metro Area (957).
6,000
5,000
Population Density - Persons per Square Miles
5,025
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2,158
3,002
1,931
4,280
2,432
4,167
1,902
957
0
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 11
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Households (2010)
• Compared to the peer communities, St. Louis Park had the second largest number of
households in 2010 with a total of 21,743. Edina has the third largest number of
households with a total of nearly 20,700 households.
• The City of Bloomington has the largest household base in 2010 with a total of almost
36,000 and the City of Hopkins has the smallest number of households with a total of
roughly 8,400.
Households
40,000
35,000
35,905
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
20,672
8,816 8,366
14,818 14,623
21,743
5,000
-
Bloomington Edina Golden
Valley
Hopkins Richfield Roseville St. Louis
Park
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 12
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Household Size (2010)
• St. Louis Park had the lowest household size with an average of 2.08 persons per household.
The second smallest household size was in Hopkins (2.10). The largest household size
among the peer communities is found in Richfield (2.38). The smaller household sizes in St.
Louis Park and Hopkins can be in part attributed to a high percentage of householders living
alone.
• In comparison, Hennepin County has an average household size of 2.42 and the Metro Area
is 2.55 persons per household.
2.75
Household Size
2.55
2.50
2.31 2.32 2.31
2.38
2.30
2.42
2.25
2.10
2.08
2.00
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 13
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
$78,579 $58,363 $110,634 $82,375 $95,258 $72,035 $62,246 $41,080 $61,744 $49,230 $76,271 $57,750 $68,768 $52,378 $79,880 $57,326 $81,259 $61,175 Household Income (2013 Avg. and Median)
• The average and median income in St. Louis Park in 2013 is $68,768 and $52,378
respectively. St. Louis Park’s incomes are higher than Hopkins and Richfield, but lower than
Edina, Golden Valley, Bloomington, and Roseville.
• Edina and Golden Valley have the highest median household incomes with $82,375 and
$72,035, respectively.
• In comparison to Hennepin County and the Metro Area, household income in St. Louis Park
is slightly lower. Hennepin County has a median household income of $57,326 and the
Metro Area has a median household income of $61,175.
$120,000
$100,000
Household Income
Household Income (Avg.) 2013
Household Income (Median) 2013
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 14
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Living Alone (2010)
• St. Louis Park (40.1%) and Hopkins (43.4%) have the highest percentage of householders
living alone compared the peer communities. The large supply of smaller housing units and
one-bedroom units plays a factor in the higher than average percentage of persons living
alone.
• About one-third of Hennepin County householders live alone. Golden Valley has the lowest
percentage of households living alone (30.4%).
50.0% Percent Living Alone
40.0%
30.0%
32.2% 33.1%
30.4%
43.4%
34.3% 35.3%
40.1%
32.7%
20.0%
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 15
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
68.9% 31.1% 74.8% 25.2% 77.8% 22.2% 39.3% 60.7% 64.9% 35.1% 67.2% 32.8% 60.7% 39.3% 64.3% 35.7% 70.0% 30.0% Household Tenure (2010)
• Approximately 61% of St. Louis Park households owned their housing in 2010. Compared to
the peer communities only Hopkins posted a lower percentage (39.3%). The
homeownership rate in Hennepin County is about 64% while 70% of Metro Area
householders are homeowners.
• Bloomington (68.9%), Richfield (64.9%), and Roseville (67.2%) all have somewhat similar
ratios of owner-to-renter households.
• Contiguous Edina and Golden Valley had owner-occupied households accounting for about
75% or more.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Household Tenure
Renters
Owners
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 16
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Housing Characteristics
This section of the memorandum analyzes median age of housing stock, median household
income by tenure (owner and renter), median sales price, owner turnover, mobility over 1 year,
rental vacancy rates, and building permits. Age of housing stock, median household income by
tenure, owner turnover, and mobility over 1 year was derived from the 2011 American
Community Survey. Median sales price data is derived from the Regional Multiple Listing
Service of Minnesota (RMLS) and is 2013 year-end data. Rental vacancy rate data is sources to
Marquette Advisors and is also the year-end 2013 data. Building Permit data was sourced
through Met Council.
Median Age of Housing Stock (2011)
• Amongst all owner and renter-occupied units, the median age of a housing unit in St. Louis
Park is 1960. Compared to the peer communities, only Richfield has an older housing stock
(1957). Neighboring Golden Valley (1965), Edina (1966), and Hopkins (1970) all have slightly
newer housing units.
• In comparison to Hennepin County and the Metro Area, St. Louis Park has an older housing
stock due to its geographic location as an inner-ring, central community. Hennepin County
and Metro Area have median housing age of 1968 and 1974 respectively.
1975
1970
1969
Median Age of Housing Stock
1970
1968
1974
1965
1960
1966 1965
1957
1965
1960
1955
1950
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 17
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
$76,761 $36,007 $105,078 $51,453 $94,673 $39,939 $76,818 $39,014 $68,571 $32,157 $76,524 $39,024 $81,956 $44,572 $84,133 $33,234 Median HH Income by Tenure (2011 Owner and Renter)
• St. Louis Park owner-occupied householders had a median household income of nearly
$82,000 compared to $44,500 among renter households.
• Owner-occupied household income in St. Louis Park is higher than Roseville, Richfield,
Hopkins, and Bloomington. Only Edina and Golden Valley have higher incomes.
• In comparison to Hennepin County, St. Louis Park has a slightly lower household income.
Hennepin County has a median owner-occupied household income in 2011 with $84,133.
• St. Louis Park median renter incomes are higher than most peer cities as only Edina has a
higher renter median income. St. Louis Park’s median income for renters is about +34%
higher than Hennepin County’s.
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
Median HH Income by Tenure
Median HH Income by Tenure (Owner)
Median HH Income by Tenure (Renter)
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 18
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Median Sales Price (2013)
• The median sales price in St. Louis Park was $219,000 in 2013. The median sales price is
higher than peer communities Hopkins, Richfield, and Roseville but lower than
Bloomington, Edina, and Golden Valley.
• In comparison to Hennepin County and the Metro Area, St. Louis Park has a slightly higher
median sales price. Hennepin County and Metro Area had median sales price of $209,900
and $201,200 respectively in 2013.
$400,000 Median Sales Price (2013)
$350,000 $350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$193,100
$246,000
$180,500
$174,950
$197,535
$219,000
$209,900
$201,200
$100,000
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 19
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Owner Turnover (2013 resales)
• Owner turnover is defined as the number of owner-occupied housing units that sold in 2013
divided by the total number of owner-occupied housing units in the defined geography.
Nearly 7% of St. Louis Park’s owner occupied housing units turned-over last year, resulting
in the highest percentage versus the comparable communities. Hopkins (6.5%) and Edina
(6.4%) had similar turnover percentages
• Compared to Hennepin County and the Metro Area, St. Louis Park posted higher turnover
percentages this past year. Hennepin County and Metro Area have an owner turnover
percentage of 6.3% and 5.9%. The local real estate market in St. Louis Park posted positive
gains in 2013 as over 900 resales were recorded, an increase of +13% compared to 2012.
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
5.5%
5.0%
4.5%
4.7%
6.4%
5.5%
Owner Turnover (1 year)
6.5%
6.1%
4.5%
6.9%
6.3%
5.9%
4.0%
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 20
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Mobility over 1 year (2011 All HH’s)
• Mobility is defined as the number of householders who moved outside the defined
community in the past year (in this case 2011). About one-fifth of St. Louis Park
householders moved outside of St. Louis Park over the course of the year. Only Hopkins
(28.7%) has a higher percentage of moves. This percentage is in-part due to a higher ratio
of rental housing stock compared to other communities.
• In comparison to Hennepin County and the Metro Area, mobility is higher in St. Louis Park.
Hennepin County and Metro Area have a mobility percentage of 17.8% and 15.3%,
respectively.
35.0%
Mobility over 1 year (All HHs)
30.0% 28.7%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
13.3% 13.6% 14.0%
16.7%
15.6%
20.6%
17.8%
15.3%
10.0%
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 21
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Rental Vacancy Rate (2013)
• Across the Metro Area, vacancy rates are extremely low as all of the identified geographies
have vacancy rates below 5% (equilibrium). St. Louis Park vacancies are 2.5%, indicating
pent-up demand for apartment units. Richfield (2.2%) and Golden Valley (2.1%) are the
only communities with slightly lower vacancies.
• The Metro Area vacancy was also 2.5% at year-end 2013. As a result, rents are increasing
across the Metro Area because of the tight supply.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 22
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Building Permits (2000 to 2012)
• Compared to the comparison communities, St. Louis Park issued the most building permits
between 2000 and 2012 (2,930 permits). Building permits were driven by condominium
construction in the first-half of the decade and apartments over the last few years.
• Bloomington posted the second highest number of building permits with just over 2,000.
Hopkins posted the fewest with 424 permits.
Total Building Permits (2000 to 2012)
3,500
3,000
2,930
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2,022
1,424
669
424
693
924
0
Bloomington Edina Golden
Valley
Hopkins Richfield Roseville St. Louis Park
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 23
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Cost Burdened Households
Families who pay more than 30% of their income for housing are considered cost burdened.
This section of the memorandum examines cost burned households, owner-occupied and
renter-occupied, and overall percentages of people below the poverty level.
Cost Burdened Households (all owner households)
• Approximately 30% of St. Louis Park owner households are cost burdened; about the same
percentage as Hennepin County but higher than the Metro Area average.
• Richfield and Hopkins have a higher percentage of cost burdened owner households than
St. Louis Park.
35.0%
30.0%
27.6% 27.5%
Cost Burden-All Owner HH's
32.7% 32.2%
26.1%
30.3% 30.6%
28.7%
25.0%
25.1%
20.0%
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 24
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Cost Burdened Households (all renter households)
• Compared to other peer communities, St. Louis Park has the lowest percentage of cost
burdened renter-occupied households (40.8%). Richfield has the highest percentage at
about 54%.
• St. Louis Park also has a lower percentage of cost burdened renter-occupied households
than Hennepin County (49.7%) and the Metro Area (48.7%).
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
51.0%
Cost Burden-Renter HH's
53.9%
50.6%
49.7%
48.7%
45.0%
40.0%
43.0%
42.8% 43.7%
40.8%
35.0%
30.0%
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 25
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Overall Percent below Poverty Level
• Roughly 9% of St. Louis Park’s households are below the poverty line. This percentage is
lower than Hopkins and Richfield, but higher than other neighboring communities. Edina
has the lowest percentage of households in poverty at 4%.
• The percentage of households below the poverty line in St. Louis Park is lower than
Hennepin County (12.3%) and the Metro Area (10.3%).
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
Overall Percent below poverty level
12.8%
11.9%
12.3%
10.3%
8.0%
8.5%
7.0%
8.4% 8.8%
6.0%
4.0%
4.0%
2.0%
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 26
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Project-Based Affordable/Subsidized Units
This segment of the memorandum analyzes project based affordable/subsidized units amongst
the peer cities, Hennepin County, and the Metro Area. It should be noted the data does not
include housing vouchers or naturally occurring affordable housing. Data is sourced to the
Housing Link database.
Total Number of Project-Based Affordable/Subsidized Units
• Compared to the peer communities, St. Louis Park has the most affordable/subsidized units
with 961 units. Bloomington has a similar number (936) but also has a population nearly
twice of St. Louis Park. Both communities have a similar number of affordable/subsidized
units at 30% Ami and 50% AMI.
• Approximately 11% of St. Louis Park’s rental housing stock is project based
affordable/subsidized. Golden Valley has the highest ratio of affordable/subsidized units to
the rental housing stock; however Golden Valley has substantially fewer rental units and
only 22% of the households are rental.
• About 57% of St. Louis Park’s project based affordable housing is affordable at 30% AMI.
Approximately 31% is affordable at 50% AMI and 12% at 60% AMI.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 27
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 28
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC, HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, & EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY SAINT
LOUIS PARK COMPARISON
2010 (unless otherwise noted)
Summary Bloomington Edina Golden Valley Hopkins Richfield Roseville St. Louis Park Hennepin Co. Metro Area (7-County)
Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct.
Geographic Area (Squre Miles) 38.42
82,893
35,905
2.31
$78,579
$58,363
5,731 16.0%
11,013 30.7%
4,874 13.6%
11,545 32.2%
2,742 7.6%
16,363 19.7%
6,485 7.8%
11,312 13.6%
9,531 11.5%
12,762 15.4%
11,222 13.5%
7,502 9.1%
7,716 9.3%
24,737 68.9%
11,168 31.1%
2,158
89,195
3,563
$1,093
79,326
32,734
46,592
15.97
47,941
20,672
2.32
$110,634
$82,375
4,955 24.0%
6,153 29.8%
1,810 8.8%
6,851 33.1%
903 4.4%
11,589 24.2%
2,200 4.6%
4,288 8.9%
5,783 12.1%
7,556 15.8%
6,618 13.8%
4,146 8.6%
5,761 12.0%
15,455 74.8%
5,217 25.2%
3,002
48,653
2,799
$1,099
48,036
18,830
29,206
10.55
20,371
8,816
2.31
$95,258
$72,035
1,648 18.7%
2,784 31.6%
985 11.2%
2,682 30.4%
717 8.1%
4,055 19.9%
1,034 5.1%
2,421 11.9%
2,436 12.0%
3,387 16.6%
2,896 14.2%
1,801 8.8%
2,341 11.5%
6,857 77.8%
1,959 22.2%
1,931
35,446
1,187
$1,902
39,279
8,609
30,670
4.11
17,591
8,366
2.10
$62,246
$41,080
1,154 13.8%
1,474 17.6%
1,347 16.1%
3,628 43.4%
763 9.1%
3,718 21.1%
1,494 8.5%
3,766 21.4%
2,269 12.9%
2,328 13.2%
1,792 10.2%
895 5.1%
1,329 7.6%
3,289 39.3%
5,077 60.7%
4,280
14,208
699
$1,327
10,490
8,110
2,380
7.01
35,228
14,818
2.38
$61,744
$49,230
2,464 16.6%
3,641 24.6%
2,315 15.6%
5,081 34.3%
1,317 8.9%
7,516 21.3%
2,979 8.5%
6,536 18.6%
4,510 12.8%
4,779 13.6%
3,898 11.1%
2,109 6.0%
2,901 8.2%
9,618 64.9%
5,200 35.1%
5,025
15,938
722
$1,183
14,768
15,996
-1,228
13.84
33,660
14,623
2.30
$76,271
$57,750
2,358 16.1%
4,370 29.9%
1,678 11.5%
5,160 35.3%
1,057 7.2%
6,255 18.6%
3,642 10.8%
4,472 13.3%
3,545 10.5%
4,734 14.1%
4,227 12.6%
2,976 8.8%
3,809 11.3%
9,831 67.2%
4,792 32.8%
2,432
36,517
1,485
$855
31,681
14,035
17,646
10.86
45,250
21,743
2.08
$68,768
$52,378
3,084 14.2%
4,647 21.4%
2,728 12.5%
8,716 40.1%
2,568 11.8%
8,373 18.5%
3,634 8.0%
10,354 22.9%
6,150 13.6%
5,889 13.0%
4,974 11.0%
2,560 5.7%
3,316 7.3%
13,191 60.7%
8,552 39.3%
4,167
42,393
1,939
$940
37,716
22,147
15,569
606.00
1,152,425
475,913
2.42
$79,880
$57,326
89,084 18.7%
116,099 24.4%
67,702 14.2%
155,807 32.7%
47,221 9.9%
261,345 22.7%
113,551 9.9%
187,523 16.3%
154,304 13.4%
171,130 14.8%
133,758 11.6%
66,516 5.8%
64,298 5.6%
306,121 64.3%
169,792 35.7%
1,902
853,369
38,596
$1,164
424,103
151,355
272,748
2,976.26
2,849,567
1,117,749
2.55
$81,259
$61,175
244,687 21.9%
298,723 26.7%
164,086 14.7%
91,223 8.2%
319,030 28.5%
700,960 24.6%
263,462 9.2%
420,311 14.7%
391,324 13.7%
440,753 15.5%
326,007 11.4%
163,425 5.7%
143,325 5.0%
782,475 70.0%
335,274 30.0%
957
n/a
n/a
n/a
884,216
738,054
146,162
Demographics
Population
Households
Household Size
Household Income (Avg.) 2013
Household Income (Median) 2013
Household Type Married with
Children Married without
Children Other
Living Alone
Roommates
Age Distribution
Under 18
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75+
Tenure
Owners
Renters
Population Density (per sq. mile)
Employment
Employment
Establishments
Avg. Weekly Wage1
Inflow/Outflow
Inflow2
Outflow2
Netflow2
CONTINUED
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 29
MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC.
TABLE 1 (Con't) DEMOGRAPHIC, HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, & EMPLOYMENT
SUMMARY SAINT LOUIS PARK COMPARISON
2010 (unless otherwise noted)
Summary Bloomington Edina Golden Valley Hopkins Richfield Roseville St. Louis Park Hennepin Co. Metro Area (7-County)
Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct. Num Pct.
35,736
1969
1966
1974
857 2.4%
10,398 29.1%
15,036 42.1%
7,958 22.3%
1,487 4.2%
$76,761
$36,007
$855
$234,700
$193,100
1165
4.7%
13.3%
2.5%
929 45.9%
405 20.0%
688 34.0%
20,586
1966
1962
1974
1,858 9.0%
6,175 30.0%
7,850 38.1%
3,605 17.5%
1,098 5.3%
$105,078
$51,453
$1,042
$391,700
$350,000
993
6.4%
13.6%
3.1%
452 31.7%
672 47.2%
300 21.1%
8,695
1965
1962
1975
407 4.7%
2,910 33.5%
3,704 42.6%
997 11.5%
677 7.8%
$94,673
$39,939
$851
$277,900
$246,000
380
5.5%
14.0%
2.1%
615 91.9%
40 6.0%
14 2.1%
7,989
1970
1956
1974
869 10.9%
2,085 26.1%
2,932 36.7%
1,534 19.2%
569 7.1%
$76,818
$39,014
$846
$225,200
$180,500
215
6.5%
28.7%
4.1%
334 78.8%
33 7.8%
57 13.4%
14,816
1957
1954
1969
885 6.0%
8,159 55.1%
3,499 23.6%
1,545 10.4%
728 4.9%
$68,571
$32,157
$718
$212,800
$174,950
583
6.1%
16.7%
2.2%
576 83.1%
12 1.7%
105 15.2%
14,770
1965
1961
1972
572 3.9%
4,991 33.8%
6,368 43.1%
2,225 15.1%
614 4.2%
$76,524
$39,024
$790
$232,200
$197,535
440
4.5%
15.6%
2.8%
601 65.0%
109 11.8%
214 23.2%
21,357
1960
1954
1974
1,858 8.7%
9,041 42.3%
5,528 25.9%
3,207 15.0%
1,723 8.1%
$81,956
$44,572
$862
$240,400
$219,000
909
6.9%
20.6%
2.5%
1422 48.5%
877 29.9%
631 21.5%
475,737
1968
1965
1971
97,266 20.4%
96,177 20.2%
130,718 27.5%
109,383 23.0%
42,193 8.9%
84,133
33,234
$810
$244,100
$209,900
19161
6.3%
17.8%
n/a
33841 62.1%
12401 22.8%
8247 15.1%
1,117,438
1974
n/a
n/a
174,017 15.6%
175,296 15.7%
298,563 26.7%
327,462 29.3%
142,100 12.7%
n/a
n/a
$771
$238,727
$201,200
46151
5.9%
15.3%
2.5%
116769 68.3%
36589 21.4%
17655 10.3%
Housing Characteristics (2011)
Total Housing Units
Median Age of Housing Stock
Owner Median Renter Median
Year Built
Built Prior to 1940
1940 to 1959
1960 to 1979
1980 to 1999
2000+
Median HH Income by Tenure (Owner)
Median HH Income by Tenure (Renter)
Contract Rent
Median Home Value
Median Sales Price (2013)3
Closed Sales (2013)3
Owner Turnover (1 year)3
Mobility over 1 year (All HHs)
Rental Vacancy Rate (2013)4
Building Permits5
2000 to 2005
2006 to 2010
2011 to 2012
Total 2000 to 2012
2,022 100.0%
6,889 27.6%
3,949 55.7%
5,256 51.0%
4,196 86.4%
8.5%
1,832 11.2%
4,340 8.5%
776 5.3%
587 62.7%
308 32.9%
41 4.4%
0 0.0%
1,424 100.0%
4,192 27.5%
2,196 59.3%
2,199 43.0%
1,633 82.4%
4.0%
402 3.5%
1,125 4.3%
362 3.7%
404 83.8%
8 1.7%
70 14.5%
0 0.0%
669 100.0%
1,750 26.1%
824 62.4%
942 50.6%
661 77.3%
7.0%
404 10.9%
767 6.3%
220 5.8%
133 24.4%
413 75.6%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
424 100.0%
1,026 32.7%
636 60.6%
2,050 42.8%
1,561 80.4%
11.9%
828 20.3%
1,079 9.4%
138 8.1%
378 70.9%
155 29.1%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
693 100.0%
3,079 32.2%
1,917 59.7%
2,725 53.9%
2,289 80.3%
12.8%
1,582 21.9%
2,449 10.8%
445 8.8%
180 29.5%
78 12.8%
308 50.4%
45 7.4%
924 100.0%
2,439 25.1%
1,562 49.3%
2,087 43.7%
1,736 81.3%
8.4%
676 11.1%
1,695 8.7%
323 5.0%
328 43.8%
177 23.6%
244 32.6%
0 0.0%
2,930 100.0%
3,952 30.3%
2,089 65.2%
3,301 40.8%
2,725 82.6%
8.8%
1,107 12.9%
2,418 7.8%
374 7.5%
544 56.6%
300 31.2%
117 12.2%
0 0.0%
54,489 100.0%
94,000 30.6%
50,180 65.9%
80,115 49.7%
67,599 81.5%
12.3%
42,814 16.6%
85,528 11.5%
9,916 8.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
171,013 100.0%
224,143 28.7%
121,859 61.9%
163,723 48.7%
137,580 77.4%
10.3%
96,158 13.9%
170,853 9.5%
21,335 7.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Cost Burdened Households6
Cost Burdened HH (Owner) All
Owner HHs
Owner HHs earning <$50k
Cost Burdened HH (Renter) All
Renter HHs
Renters HHs earning <$35k
Overall Percent below poverty level7
Under 18
18 to 64
65 and over
Project Based Affordable/Subsidized Hsg. Units8
30% AMI
50% AMI
60% AMI
80% AMI
Total
Aff. Unit Pct. of Rental Housing Stock
936 100.0%
8.4%
482 100.0%
9.2%
546 100.0%
27.9%
533 100.0%
10.5%
611 100.0%
11.8%
749 100.0%
15.6%
961 100.0%
11.2%
Sources:
1 Per DEED
2 Per On the Map LEHD
3 Per Regional MLS of Minnesota. Owner turnover is calcuated based on the number of sales in 2013 divided by the owner housing stock.
4 Per Marquette Advisors
5 Per Met Council
6 Cost Burden is defined as a household spending greater than 30% of their income for housing.
7 Poverty, according to U.S. Census, uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family (and every individual in
it) or unrelated individual is considered in poverty.
8 Per Housing Link
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Met Council, LEHD, Marquette Advisors, RMLS, Maxfield Research, Inc.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 5, 2014 (Item No. 3)
Title: Review of City’s Housing Goals Page 30