HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/05/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
MAY 20, 2013
(Councilmember Sanger Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Westwood Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Applicant Review
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes May 6, 2013
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business
7a. Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the
Redevelopment Contract between the EDA, the City, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
(HuntAssociates) related to its proposed Eliot Park project.
8. Communications
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. Presentation of CenterPoint Energy Grant
2b. Retirement Recognition for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson
2c. Retirement Recognition for Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes April 22, 2013
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes May 6, 2013
Meeting of May 20, 2013
City Council Agenda
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project –
Project #2012-0100
Recommended Action: Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $22,295,084.23 for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project -
Project #2012-0100.
8b. Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development - 6720
and 6800 Cedar Lake Road
Recommended Action:
• Motion to approve Second Reading to Adopt Ordinance amending the Zoning Map
Amendment from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-4 Multiple Family
Residence District for a portion of the property at 6800 Cedar Lake Road to be
described as Lot 1, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, and authorize publication.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Final Plat of Eliot Park Apartments with
conditions.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) with
conditions.
8c. Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Redevelopment
Contract between the City, the EDA, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt Associates)
related to its proposed Eliot Park project.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of May 20, 2013
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolutions to recognize Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson for his 31
years of service, and Fire Chief Luke Stemmer for his 36 years of service to the City
of St. Louis Park
4b. Approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the St. Louis Park Public
Schools Foundation, P.O. Box 16367, St. Louis Park, for an event to be held on
October 5, 2013, at the Warehouse Winery located at 6415 Cambridge.
4c. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Code of
Ordinances Chapter 16 relating to criminal history background checks, and approve
summary ordinance for publication on May 30, 2013
4d. Adopt Resolution providing sale of $4,165,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
Series 2013A
4e. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the St. Louis
Park Crime Prevention Fund in the amount of $5,000 to use toward the purchase of a
robot for the Police Department
4f. Accept Grant from CenterPoint Energy in the amount of $2,500 for a civil defense
outdoor warning siren
4g. Adopt Resolution accepting a donation to the Fire Department
4h. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $300 donation from the family of Patrick
J. McCashin for the purchase and installation of a Sugar Maple tree at the Dakota Park
Dog Park in memory of Patrick J. McCashin
4i. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the 2013 Friends
of the Park tree sale in the amount of $75 for the purchase of trees for the parks
4j. Adopt Resolution identifying the need for Livable Communities Transit Oriented
Development funding and authorizing an application for grant funds
4k. Approve an extension until May 31, 2014 for Duke Realty to file the final plat and
final planned unit development (PUD) applications for The Towers at West End
4l. Adopt Resolution appointing Perry Edman as a member to the Technical Advisory
Committee for the Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
4m. Approve for filing BOZA Meeting Minutes October 25, 2012
4n. Approve for filing PRAC Meeting Minutes February 20, 2013
4o. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
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 20, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Applicant Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this discussion is to
continue the review of applications and determine final candidates to begin the interview process
for this commission.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Who does Council wish to interview?
SUMMARY: On April 1, 2013, Council approved Ordinance No. 2438-13, establishing the
Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP. This Commission will be
advisory to the Council and will consist of eight regular members, two business members, one
residential tenant member, and two youth members.
A total of 21 applications were received in the City Clerk’s office. These applications, along with
an applicant information chart and Ward distribution map, were forwarded to Council on May 2,
2013, for their review. Council discussion took place at the May 13, 2013 Study Session
regarding the candidates and the next steps in the interview process.
The purpose of the meeting is for Council to determine the candidates who will begin the
interview process to fill the commission.
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
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 6, 2013
1. Call to Order
President Santa called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Sue Santa, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and
Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: Jeff Jacobs and Julia Ross.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes March 18, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period March 9 through April 26, 2013.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Jacobs and Ross absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District.
EDA Resolution No. 13-02 and Resolution No. 13-03.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated Hunt Associates has a Purchase Agreement
with the School District to acquire the former Eliot School property and proposes to raze
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: EDA Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
the existing building and construct a $25 million development consisting of 138 market
rate apartments and two single family homes. He advised that in order to pursue the
project, Hunt Associates has applied for tax increment assistance to offset the cost of
redeveloping the site, including demolition, asbestos abatement within the former school
building, and constructing the project in accordance with the Design Guidelines. He
stated the formal analysis of the proposal prepared by LHB, Inc., found the proposed TIF
District meets all statutory requirements of a redevelopment district and Ehlers prepared
the formal TIF plan. He advised the proposed TIF District consists of two parcels and
has a maximum term of 25 years, adding that the term of the proposed TIF District is
estimated to be less than seven years. He pointed out that authorizing the establishment
of the Eliot Park TIF District does not commit the EDA to any specific level of financial
assistance for the project and simply creates the funding vehicle to reimburse the
developer for certain costs. He stated the terms and amount of tax increment assistance
will be provided in the Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, and
presented to the EDA on May 20, 2013.
Commissioner Mavity requested further information regarding the estimated annual tax
increment of up to $557,000 listed in the TIF Plan Overview.
Mr. Locke stated the estimated annual tax increment is the amount of tax increment
generated and does not represent the amount of tax increment assistance available. He
added it was important to recognize that the EDA’s action this evening creates the TIF
District and the EDA’s action on May 20th on the Redevelopment Contract will include
the EDA’s decision whether to provide tax increment assistance and under what
conditions.
Commissioner Mavity asked if it was correct that at this time the Eliot School property is
tax exempt and is not generating any revenue for the City.
Mr. Locke replied that this was correct.
Commissioner Mavity asked how much tax revenue is anticipated from this property after
expiration of the TIF District.
Mr. Hunt replied the total annual taxes for the property are estimated at approximately
$325,000 from all taxing jurisdictions.
Commissioner Sanger stated she would not support this proposal and did not believe this
proposal represented an appropriate use of the land. She stated she continues to believe
that adding high density in the middle of a single family neighborhood was not
appropriate and was contrary to the recommendations of the neighborhood task force
which recommended nothing more than medium density on the site. She stated this is a
project that has a vast number of small, one-bedroom apartments within it and the City
has been told by the School District it would like to see larger homes built in the City so
families with children can send their children to the City’s schools. She felt that adding
more apartments in the City was inappropriate and would prefer this land be used for
single family homes in compliance with the City’s housing policy to promote more single
family move-up homes. She stated this land has been zoned for single family homes but
the purchase price of the parcel was apparently calculated as if the land could be used for
high density housing adding the City was told by the School District representative that
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: EDA Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
the School District determined the highest and best use for the land would be high density
housing and the lot was priced accordingly. She stated as a result of the inflated price
paid for the parcel, the developer has now requested tax increment financing assistance,
which represents an indirect transfer of funds from city taxpayers to the School District.
Commissioner Hallfin asked how much tax increment financing assistance has been
requested and also asked what would happen if the TIF request is rejected by the EDA.
Mr. Hunt replied the proposed requested amount of tax increment assistance is $1.1
million.
Mr. Dan Hunt, Hunt Associates, appeared before the EDA and stated if the project does
not receive TIF assistance, his choices include not proceeding with the project or to
renegotiate with the City.
Commissioner Mavity asked if there was a standard pro forma used by staff to evaluate
the appropriate amount of tax increment financing.
Mr. Locke stated the City uses a standard pro forma system for making that calculation
and Ehlers compared this project with other similar projects to make the determination
that the estimated costs are not inflated adding the City does not provide TIF assistance
unless it is justified.
Commissioner Mavity stated the City has gone a long way with the community in its
discussions regarding this project and the Design Guidelines recommended medium
density housing in spirit and in fact. She felt the developer has been tremendously
responsive to the issues raised and has revised his plans to respond to the neighborhood
concerns.
Commissioner Sanger pointed out that this site was not originally designated as high
density and was only recently changed in the Comprehensive Plan at the request of the
developer. She also pointed out that the proposed medium density still exceeds the
Design Guidelines. She felt that if this was not approved this evening, an alternative
exists for the School District and the developer to renegotiate the purchase price.
It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 13-02 Adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
Therein and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor.
The motion passed 4-1 (Commissioner Sanger opposed; Commissioners Jacobs and Ross
absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 13-03 Authorizing an Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Costs in
Connection with the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District.
The motion passed 4-1 (Commissioner Sanger opposed; Commissioners Jacobs and Ross
absent).
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: EDA Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
7b. Authorization to Submit Contamination Cleanup Grant Application Related
to Eliot Park Project. EDA Resolution No. 13-04.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised the City has determined that the
estimated $325,000 cost of contamination cleanup on the Eliot School site, including
asbestos abatement and removal of lead-based paint, qualifies for a contamination
cleanup grant administered by the Met Council. He stated if the grant is awarded to the
developer, the developer could be reimbursed soon after incurring the expense thus
saving on its construction financing and the benefit to the EDA is the decreased TIF
assistance and shortening of the TIF payback period.
It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 13-04 Authorizing Application for the Metropolitan Council Tax Base
Revitalization Account on Behalf of Eliot Park Apartments, LLC.
The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Jacobs and Ross absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: EDA Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Vendor Claims for the period
April 27 through May 10, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUMMARY: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s
review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:44:32R55CKSUM LOG20000
1Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Company Amount
9,000.0004798 HRA LEVY
57,373.7804890 DEVELOPMENT - EDA
Report Totals 66,373.78
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 5a)
Title: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the
Redevelopment Contract between the EDA, the City, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt
Associates) related to its proposed Eliot Park project.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the EDA wish to approve the proposed Redevelopment
Contract between the EDA, the City, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC to facilitate the construction
of its proposed multi-family residential development on the former Eliot School property?
SUMMARY: Hunt Associates’ proposed project plans and request for financial assistance in
connection with the redevelopment of 6800 & 6720 Cedar Lake Road (former Eliot School
property) have been presented and discussed at previous study sessions over the past year. The
Redeveloper’s application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance was reviewed at the
February 25th Study Session where it received consensus support. A list of specific business
terms (consistent with the discussion held at the February 25th Study Session) was provided at
the April 22nd study session. Those terms served as the basis for the proposed Redevelopment
Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt Associates and “Redeveloper”). Constructing the
proposed Eliot Park project in conformance with the Eliot Design Guidelines is not
economically feasible without some financial assistance. Hunt Associates is seeking financial
assistance specifically to offset the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the former school
property and meeting the Eliot Design Guidelines.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed Eliot Park project is
conservatively estimated to add $17.7 million to the City’s tax base following completion. As a
result, the project would generate roughly $250,000 in tax increment annually. In order for Eliot
Park to proceed, it is proposed that the EDA provide $1.1 million in pay-as-you-go tax
increment from the recently approved Eliot Park TIF district. Once the TIF Note is satisfied and
the TIF district is decertified the property taxes from Eliot Park will accrue to the benefit of the
local taxing jurisdictions.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution of Approval
Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Eliot Park Site and Building Plans
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hunt Associates (“Redeveloper”) has a purchase agreement with
Independent School District 283 to acquire 6800 & 6720 Cedar Lake Road (the former Eliot
School property and “subject property”). The firm proposes to raze the existing school building
and construct a $25 million residential development on the site consisting of 138 market rate
apartment units (distributed between two buildings) and two single family homes. The value for
real estate tax purposes of the project is estimated to be, at a minimum, $17.7 million when
completed. Both apartment buildings would be staggered in height with two and three stories so
as to blend into the surrounding single family neighborhood and would feature structured
underground parking. The proposed single family home lots at the north end of the site would be
sold to a different development group for construction. The proposed Eliot Park site plan also
includes a private road with parking spaces; a stormwater pond; landscaping; sidewalks; and
children’s playground.
Project Schedule
Hunt Associates hopes to begin construction on Eliot Park this year. However, it may be some
time before its financing is fully in place. Therefore it may be next summer before it is able to
commence construction. To accommodate this contingency the proposed Redevelopment
Contract allows the Redeveloper to commence construction by July 1, 2014 and substantially
complete both the apartment buildings and single family homes by December 1, 2015.
Property Value and Taxes
Currently, the subject property is tax exempt and is therefore not generating any property tax
revenue. With the transfer of the school property to the Redeveloper the property becomes
taxable. The purchase price of the subject property is $2,075,000 (and that is the base market
value of the property within the TIF district).
The estimated market value of the property upon redevelopment is estimated at approximately
$17.7 million. It should be noted that the value of the project could be much higher once it is
assessed for tax purposes. This is a conservative value utilized only for estimating the amount of
TIF the project would generate (the value could be as high as $19.3 million).
Request for Financial Assistance
In order to construct Eliot Park, Hunt Associates applied for tax increment assistance from the
EDA to offset a portion of the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the site such as hazardous
waste abatement within the former school building, demolition and constructing Eliot Park in
conformance with the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study / Design Guidelines.
Hunt Associates’ preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor
rate of return (ROR) related to Eliot Park were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers & Associates. The
estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded that constructing Eliot Park inclusive of the extraordinary
site and building costs noted above was not economically feasible without some financial
assistance from the EDA.
Upon analysis by Ehlers and Staff, and discussion with Hunt Associates, it was determined that
$1.1 million in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward. Providing
assistance makes it possible to construct a high quality housing development on a former tax
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
exempt property. As discussed at previous Study Sessions, this proposed amount is consistent
with other similar-sized multi-family residential developments the EDA has previously assisted.
The EDA’s participation would leverage approximately $25 million in new investment. The
ratio of private to public investment in the project is $23 to $1. As a percentage of total project
cost the requested amount of financial assistance is approximately 4%.
Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property
would be provided to Hunt Associates on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. This means the Redeveloper
must first incur the construction costs with its own funds. The tax increment is then used to
reimburse the developer for certain agreed upon “Public Redevelopment Costs” incurred as part of
the project. This is the preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy. Eliot Park has
met the requirements of a Redevelopment TIF District (25 year TIF District). Under this type of
TIF district, the proposed project would generate the requested $1.1 million in approximately 6.5
years.
The EDA/City Council reviewed Hunt Associates’ TIF application at the February 25th Study
Session. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the
provision of $1.1 million in PAYGO TIF assistance to the Redeveloper to make the Eliot Park
project financially feasible. As a result, staff was directed to draft a formal Redevelopment
Contract with Hunt Associates.
Subsequent to the above Study Session, Staff determined that the estimated $300,000 cost of
abating the asbestos and lead-based paint within the former school building may qualify for a
Contamination Cleanup Grant through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account
(“TBRA”) Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. Submitting such an application is of
mutual benefit to both the Redeveloper and the EDA. If such a grant were awarded the
Redeveloper could be reimbursed soon after incurring the expense thus saving both principal and
interest on its construction financing. The benefit to the EDA is that the maximum principal
amount of the TIF Note would be decreased by the amount of the grant thus shortening the TIF
payback period. A resolution authorizing submission of the grant application was approved by
the EDA on May 6th.
Resolutions authorizing the establishment of the Eliot Park TIF District were also approved by
the EDA and City Council on May 6th.
Proposed Redevelopment Contract
The EDA has been in discussion with Hunt Associates relative to the redevelopment of the
former Eliot School property for some time. The Redeveloper’s proposed project plans and
request for financial assistance have been presented and/or discussed at several study sessions
over the past year. A list of specific business terms (consistent with the discussion held at the
February 25th Study Session) was provided at the April 22nd study session. Those terms served
as the basis for the proposed Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt
Associates and “Redeveloper”). The Contract for Private Redevelopment specifies the mutual
obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial
assistance to be provided. The proposed Contract was prepared by the EDA’s legal counsel,
Kennedy & Graven in consultation with staff. The following are key terms of the proposed
Contract.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
1. Redeveloper agrees to promptly abate the hazardous materials within the former Eliot
School building and raze the building on the Redevelopment Property in conformance with
Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
2. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum
Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of
the cost of the environmental remediation, building demolition, site preparation and
underground structured parking (the “Public Redevelopment Costs”). The tax increment
from the Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF District will be payable to Redeveloper in the
form of one or more “TIF Notes”, which would be structured on the following basis:
Ø Issue total: Up to $1,100,000
Ø Type: Pay-as-you-go
Ø Term: Approximately 6.5 years
Ø Interest Rate: 5.5%
Ø Admin Fee: 5%
Ø Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
3. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 93% of
the Apartments are leased; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the
Apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion
for the project. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its actual annualized
cumulative internal rate of return (the “IRR”) from the Apartments, calculated as of the
applicable Lookback Date, along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the
Apartments assuming a sale in the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate
of Completion for the Apartments. The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen
percent (18%) is considered Excess Income. If the EDA determines that there is Excess
Income, the Redeveloper could pay fifty percent (50%) of that amount to the EDA over a
reasonable amount of time from available cash flow.
4. To finance a portion of the environmental remediation costs related to developing the
Redevelopment Property, the EDA has applied for a $300,000 Contamination Cleanup
Grant (the “Grant”) through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account
(“TBRA”) Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. Redeveloper acknowledges
that if such a Grant is awarded, the maximum principal amount of the TIF Note will be
decreased by the amount of the Grant to reflect the benefit of the Grant to the Redeveloper.
5. Redeveloper agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained
by the EDA in connection with the creation of the TIF Plan for the TIF District, and the
negotiation and preparation of the Redevelopment Contract and other incidental agreements
and documents.
6. Before commencing such construction, the Redeveloper must submit plans and
specifications regarding the Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City.
All work on the Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be in accordance with the
approved construction plans and shall comply with all City requirements regarding such
improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the
Improvements in accordance with City procedures.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
7. Redeveloper agrees to undertake the “Minimum Improvements” as shown in the Master
Site Plan. In summary, the Redeveloper agrees to raze the existing school building and
construct two multi-family residential buildings on the site (consisting of a total of 138
market rate apartment units) and two single family homes. Both apartment buildings are
to be staggered in height with two and three stories. Approximately 178 underground
structured parking stalls, as well as a private road with parking spaces are to be provided
within the redevelopment. The proposed single family home lots may be sold to a
different development group; however Redeveloper is ultimately responsible for the
construction of a single family house on each lot. Redeveloper also agrees to construct a
stormwater management pond; sidewalks; landscaping; and children’s playground
including play equipment all in conformance with the PUD. Redeveloper agrees to
execute a sidewalk easement (along Cedar Lake Road) with the City to be recorded with
Hennepin County.
8. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their
approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its
approval. The term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs
by $500,000 or more.
9. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, Redeveloper agrees to abate the hazardous materials
within the former Eliot School building and raze the building on the Redevelopment
Property as soon as possible after it closes on the property. Redeveloper agrees to
commence construction of the apartment buildings by July 1, 2014 and substantially
complete both the apartment buildings and single family homes by December 1, 2015.
10. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. As a condition to
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper will
submit to the EDA a detailed list of the specific energy-efficient/sustainable features or
components implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
11. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA will deliver to the
Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. The construction of the Minimum Improvements
will be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the EDA that all related site
improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in
accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to landscaping that cannot be
completed until seasonal conditions permit.
12. The Redeveloper will at all times either self-manage (upon submission of evidence of
experience in operating multifamily residential developments) or engage a property
management company with substantial experience in operating multifamily residential
developments, subject to approval by the Authority, which approval will not be
unreasonably withheld. The Redeveloper is required to submit evidence of such
management by February 1, 2016.
13. The Redeveloper agrees to submit to the City for review and approval a plan for
maintenance and operation of the children’s playground on the Redevelopment Property
(the “Maintenance Plan”) by December 31, 2015.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
14. Upon execution of the Contract, the Redeveloper and the EDA will execute Assessment
Agreements specifying an assessor’s minimum Market Value for the Apartment Property,
Single-Family Home properties and Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The
amount of the minimum Market Value of the Apartments shall be $17,250,000 as of
January 2, 2016 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction
by such dates. The amount of the minimum Market Value of each Single-Family Home
shall be $250,000 as of January 2, 2016 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding
the status of construction by such dates.
15. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the EDA
agrees to subordinate its rights under the Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage securing
construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a mutually-approved
subordination agreement.
16. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer (except to an affiliate) the Redevelopment Contract or
the Redevelopment Property (except Single-Family Home properties) prior to receiving a
Certificate of Completion without the prior written consent of the EDA, except for
construction mortgage financing and/or permanent financing.
The attached resolution of approval allows for modifications to the Contract that do not alter the
substance of the transaction without bringing the Contract back to the EDA/City Council for
formal approval.
Business Subsidy
The assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Contract does not constitute a “business
subsidy” under the Business Subsidy Act (Section 116J.993 to 116J.995) as it is for housing.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT WITH ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On May 6, 2013, the Authority and the City of St. Louis Park approved the
establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) and adopted a tax increment financing plan for the
purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as
amended.
1.02. To facilitate the redevelopment of certain property within the Project and TIF
District, the Authority, the City, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (the “Redeveloper") have
proposed to enter into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”), setting forth the terms
and conditions of redevelopment of certain property within the Project and the TIF District,
including tax increment financing assistance to the Redeveloper.
1.03. The Board has reviewed the Contract and finds that the execution thereof and
performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its
residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Board hereby approves the Contract in substantially the form presented to the
Board, subject to modifications that do not materially alter the substance of the transaction and that
are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Contract by
those officials shall be conclusive evidence of their approval.
2.02. Authority staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to perform
the Authority’s obligations under the Contract as a whole or reasonably necessary to implement the
Contract, including without limitation execution of any documents to which the Authority is a party
referenced in or attached to the Contract.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority, May 20, 2013
Executive Director President
Attest
420588v4 MNI SA285-101
Fourth Draft
May 16, 2013
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
and
ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
Dated as of: _______________, 2013
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-9300
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 8
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions................................................................................................................2
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority and City ..............................................................6
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper ...............................................6
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs
Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property ...........................................................................8
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................8
Section 3.3 Issuance of Note .......................................................................................................9
Section 3.4. TBRA Grant ...........................................................................................................10
Section 3.5. Easement ................................................................................................................11
Section 3.6. TIF Lookback.........................................................................................................11
Section 3.7. Business Subsidy ...................................................................................................12
Section 3.8. Payment of Authority Costs ...................................................................................12
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ..............................................................................14
Section 4.2. Construction Plans .................................................................................................14
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction .................................................15
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ......................................................................................16
Section 4.5. Management ...........................................................................................................16
Section 4.6. Records and Reports ..............................................................................................16
Section 4.7. Playground .............................................................................................................16
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance ................................................................................................................18
Section 5.2. Subordination .........................................................................................................19
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 9
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 ii
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes .........................................................................20
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes ....................................................................................................20
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement ..........................................................................................20
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally ................................................................................................................21
Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage ..................................................21
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination ..................................................................................21
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development.........................................................................22
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement .....................................................................................22
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants ................................................................23
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined .....................................................................................25
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default ..............................................................................................25
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive............................................................................................26
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ....................................................26
Section 9.5. Attorney Fees .........................................................................................................26
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable .............................27
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................................................27
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use ................................................................................................27
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed ........................................................................27
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections ...............................................................................27
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ............................................................................................27
Section 10.7. Counterparts ...........................................................................................................28
Section 10.8. Recording ...............................................................................................................28
Section 10.9. Amendment ............................................................................................................28
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals ..............................................................................................28
TESTIMONIUM ......................................................................................................................... S-1
SIGNATURES ............................................................................................................................ S-1
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 10
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 iii
SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property ......................................................................... A-1
SCHEDULE B Authorizing Resolution ............................................................................B-1
SCHEDULE C Easement ..................................................................................................C-1
SCHEDULE D Certificate of Completion ....................................................................... D-1
SCHEDULE E Lookback Pro Forma................................................................................ E-1
SCHEDULE F Site Plan ................................................................................................... F-1
SCHEDULE G Form of Assessment Agreement ............................................................. G-1
SCHEDULE H Form of Subordination Agreement ......................................................... H-1
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 11
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 1
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT, made the ___ day of
_____________, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and between the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota (the
“Authority”), the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and
Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090
to 469.1081 (the “Act”) and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a
resolution of the City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and
redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City, and in this connection created the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in an area (hereinafter
referred to as the “Project Area”) located in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain
activities to prepare such real property for development and redevelopment by private enterprise;
and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has acquired or is under contract to acquire certain property
(the “Redevelopment Property”) in the Project Area upon which the Redeveloper intends to
construct a multifamily residential development, further described herein (the “Minimum
Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority and City have created the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing
District (the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as
amended (the “TIF Act”), made up of property in the Project Area including the Redevelopment
Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and City believe that the development of the Redevelopment
Property pursuant to and in general fulfillment of this Agreement, is in the vital and best interests
of the City, will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and will be in
accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and
requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 12
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 2
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended.
“Affiliate” means with respect to any entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited
liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization
or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such
Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words “controlling,” “controlled by” and “under common
control with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company
or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such
entity or possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of
management policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by
contract or otherwise.
“Agreement” means this Contract for Private Redevelopment, as the same may be from
time to time modified, amended, or supplemented.
“Apartments” has the meaning provided in the definition of Minimum Improvements.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
“Authority Representative” means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person
designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of
this Agreement.
“Authorizing Resolution” means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form
set forth in the attached Schedule B to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the issuance of
the Note.
“Available Tax Increment” has the meaning provided in the Authorizing Resolution.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which
the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized
by law or executive order to close.
“Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as
amended.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 13
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 3
“Certificate of Completion” means the certifications provided to the Redeveloper
pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement.
“Construction Plans” means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property
which (a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which
are submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the
following for each building: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) underground parking plans;
(4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all
sides); (7) landscape plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the
Authority may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed
construction work.
“County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IX of this
Agreement.
“Holder” means the owner of a Mortgage.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
“Lookback Pro Forma” means the financial pro forma for the Minimum Improvements
attached hereto as Schedule E.
“Maturity Date” means the date that the Note has been paid in full or terminated in
accordance with its terms, whichever is earlier.
“Minimum Improvements” means the demolition of an existing building on the
Redevelopment Property and construction of a multifamily residential development consisting of
approximately 138 market-rate apartment units in two buildings (the “Apartments”) and two
single-family homes (the “Single-Family Homes”), including underground parking and on-site
parking, stormwater pond, sidewalks, landscaping, and small children’s playground.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper that is secured, in whole or in
part, with the Redevelopment Property and that is security for financing permitted pursuant to
the provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement.
“Note” means a Tax Increment Revenue Note, substantially in the form contained in the
Authorizing Resolution, to be delivered by the Authority to the Redeveloper in accordance with
Section 7.3 hereof to reimburse the Redeveloper for Public Redevelopment Costs.
“Parcel” means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property.
“Project” means the Authority’s Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 14
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 4
“Public Redevelopment Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.3(a) hereof.
“Project Area” means the geographic area within the boundaries of the Project.
“Redeveloper” means Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, or its permitted successors and assigns.
“Redevelopment Plan” means the Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
“Redevelopment Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this
Agreement, provided that upon filing of a final plat of such property, the platted legal description
will control.
“Single-Family Homes” has the meaning provided in the definition of Minimum
Improvements.
“State” means the State of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment” means that portion of the real property taxes that is paid with respect to
the Redevelopment Property and that is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to
the Tax Increment Act.
“Tax Increment Act” or “TIF Act” means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended.
“Tax Increment District” or “TIF District” means the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing
District created by the City and the Authority and certified by the County on _________, 2013.
“Tax Increment Plan” or “TIF Plan” means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF
District approved by the City Council on May 6, 2013, and as it may be amended.
“Tax Official” means any County assessor, County auditor, County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the
tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
“Termination Date” means the earlier of the following: (a) the date of receipt by the
Authority of the final payment from the County of Tax Increments from the TIF District; (b) the
date when the Note has been fully paid, defeased or terminated in accordance with its terms; or
(c) the date of termination of the Note and this Agreement by the Authority due to an Event of
Default as set forth in Section 9.2 hereof.
“Transfer” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof.
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking
to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of unavoidable circumstances such as
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 15
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 5
strikes, other labor troubles, prolonged adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty,
litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action,
directly results in delays, acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the
Authority or City in exercising their rights under this Agreement), including without limitation
condemnation or threat of condemnation of any portion of the Redevelopment Property, which
directly result in delays, or materially adverse economic market conditions that make investment
in and financing of the Minimum Improvements impractical. Unavoidable Delays shall not
include delays experienced by the Redeveloper in obtaining permits or governmental approvals
necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction
is required under Section 4.3 of this Agreement, so long as the Construction Plans have been
approved in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 16
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 6
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority and City.
(a) The Authority is an economic development authority duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has
the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The City is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and existing under the laws
of the State. Under the provisions of State law and its charter, the City has the power to enter
into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(c) The Authority and City will use their best efforts to facilitate development of the
Minimum Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in
obtaining necessary administrative and land use approvals and construction financing pursuant to
Section 7.1 hereof.
(d) The Authority will issue the Note, subject to all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
(e) The activities of the Authority and City are undertaken for the purpose of
fostering the redevelopment of certain real property that is occupied by substandard and obsolete
buildings, which will revitalize this portion of the Project Area, increase tax base, and increase
housing opportunities.
(f) Neither the Authority nor City has received any written notice or other written
communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or
the Authority in the Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or
regulation (other than those notices or communications of which the Authority is aware). The
Neither the Authority nor City is aware of any facts the existence of which would cause it to be
in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, state or federal environmental
law, regulation or review procedure.
(g) The Redevelopment Plan exists and the Minimum Improvements, as described in
this Agreement, will comply with the Redevelopment Plan.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Redeveloper is a limited liability company, duly organized and in good
standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its
articles of organization or operating agreement, is duly qualified as a domestic limited liability
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 17
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 7
company and authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this
Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement
by any required proper action of its members.
(b) Upon commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the
Redeveloper will construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations
(including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and
regulations).
(c) The Redeveloper will use reasonable efforts to secure all permits, licenses and
approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper has received no written notice or other written communication
from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in
the Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other
than those notices or communications of which the Authority is aware). The Redeveloper is
aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a
valid claim under any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure.
(e) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of,
the terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which
it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(f) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for
the tax increment financing assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 18
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 8
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition and Conveyance
Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property.
(a) The Redevelopment Property consists of the Parcels described in Schedule A. As
of the date of this Agreement the Redeveloper has entered into purchase agreements to acquire
all Parcels of the Redevelopment Property. The Authority has no obligation to acquire the
Redevelopment Property.
(b) The Redeveloper shall prepare and obtain City approval of a plat of the
Redevelopment Property (the “Redevelopment Plat”) at Redeveloper’s cost and subject to all
City ordinances and procedures. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the City’s
authority in reviewing the preliminary plat, or to preclude revisions requested or required by the
City.
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions.
(a) The Redeveloper shall promptly undertake remediation of hazardous materials
within the existing structure prior to demolition and to demolish the structure in conformity with
requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health.
(b) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or
warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the
Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose
for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to
the Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the Authority or the
City for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such
parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property.
(c) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the
Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the
City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions
arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the
Redevelopment Property (including without limitation any asbestos in any existing building),
unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the
actions or omissions of the indemnitees. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or
affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including
without limitation Minnesota Statutes, Sections 466.04 and 604.02.
Section 3.3. Easements. By no later than December 31, 2015, the Redeveloper
agrees to execute and deliver to the City an instrument in substantially the form attached as
Schedule C (the “Easement”). Under the Easement, the Redeveloper grants to the City an
easement for sidewalk purposes on a portion of the Redevelopment Property to be determined by
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 19
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 9
the parties before execution of the Easement. Failure by the Redeveloper to deliver the
Easement to the City will constitute an Event of Default, unless the failure is caused by the City.
Section 3.4. Business Subsidy. The parties agree and understand that the purpose of the
Authority’s financial assistance to the Redeveloper is to facilitate development of residential
housing, and is not a “business subsidy” within the meaning of the Business Subsidy Act. The
Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the Authority and its governing body
members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the
Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any claim that the
Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement.
Section 3.5. Payment of Authority Costs. The Redeveloper agrees that it will pay, within
fifteen (15) days after written notice from the Authority, the reasonable costs of consultants and
attorneys retained by the Authority in connection with the creation of the TIF District and the
negotiation in preparation of this Agreement and other incidental agreements and documents
related to the development contemplated hereunder. The Authority will provide written reports
describing the costs accrued under this Section upon request from the Redeveloper, but not more
often than intervals of forty-five (45) days. Any amount deposited by the Redeveloper upon
filing its application for tax increment financing with the Authority will be credited to the
Redeveloper’s obligation under this Section. Upon termination of this Agreement in accordance
with its terms, the Redeveloper remains obligated under this section for costs incurred through
the effective date of termination.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 20
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 10
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it will
construct or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property
in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the
Redeveloper retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and
maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements
to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in
good repair and condition.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans.
(a) Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements, the
Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements.
The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum Improvements and
shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable State and
local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction Plans in writing if
(i) the Construction Plans conform to all terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the
Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the
Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, State and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the Minimum
Improvements; (v) the Construction Plans do not provide for expenditures in excess of the funds
available to the Redeveloper for construction of the Minimum Improvements; and (vi) no Event
of Default has occurred and is continuing. No approval by the Authority shall relieve the
Redeveloper of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement, applicable federal,
State and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct the Minimum
Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the Authority shall constitute a waiver
of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is requested by the Redeveloper in
writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed approved unless
rejected in writing by the Authority, in whole or in part. Such rejections shall set forth in detail
the reasons therefor based upon the criteria set forth in (i) through (vi) above, and shall be made
within twenty (20) days after the date of receipt of final plans from the Redeveloper. If the
Authority rejects any Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Redeveloper shall submit new
or corrected Construction Plans within twenty (20) days after written notification to the
Redeveloper of the rejection. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and
resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans
have been approved by the Authority. The Authority’s approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans
(and the Minimum Improvements, constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the
Authority’s satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
The Redeveloper hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever
resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 21
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 11
Construction Plans requested by the Authority. Neither the Authority, the City, nor any
employee or official of the Authority or City shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for
any defect in the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans,
including changes requested by the Authority.
(b) If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans
or any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the
proposed change to the Authority for its approval. For the purpose of this section, the term
“material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $500,000 or more. If
the Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this
Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the
Authority shall approve the proposed change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its
approval. Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the
Authority unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the Authority to the
Redeveloper, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within
ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of such change. The Authority’s approval of any such
change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction.
(a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of
the Apartments component of the Minimum Improvements by July 1, 2014. Subject to
Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall complete the construction of all of the Minimum
Improvements by December 1, 2015. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to
be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in
conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the
Authority.
(b) The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, and every successor
in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such
successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the
development of the Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum
Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and
completed within the periods specified in this Section. After the date of this Agreement and until
the Minimum Improvements have been fully leased, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such
detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, but no more than
monthly, as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such construction and
leasing.
(c) The Redeveloper shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy, adopted by
the City Council on February 16, 2010 and as such policy may be amended as of the date of
issuance of a building permit for the Minimum Improvements. As a condition to issuance of a
Certificate of Completion for each component of the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper shall
submit to the Authority a detailed list of the specific energy-efficient and/or sustainable features or
components implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 22
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 12
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion.
(a) Promptly after completion of (i) the Apartments and (ii) the Single-Family Homes
in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the
Redeveloper or third-party developer to construct the relevant component of the Minimum
Improvements (including the dates for commencement and completion thereof), the Authority
Representative shall deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion as to the relevant
component of the Minimum Improvements in substantially the form shown as Schedule D, in
recordable form and executed by the Authority.
(b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4, the Authority Representative shall, within
thirty (30) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a written
statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to complete
the relevant component of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the
opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order for the Authority to
issue the Certificate of Completion.
(c) The construction of each component of the Minimum Improvements shall be
deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such
component, and upon determination by the Authority Representative that all related site
improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance
with approved Construction Plans, subject to landscaping and/or public art that cannot be
completed until seasonal conditions permit.
Section 4.5. Management. The Redeveloper shall at all times either self-manage (upon
submission of evidence of experience in operating multifamily residential developments) or engage
a property management company with substantial experience in operating multifamily residential
developments, subject to approval by the Authority, which approval will not be unreasonably
withheld. The Redeveloper will submit evidence of such management by February 1, 2016.
Section 4.6. Records and Reports.
(a) Until the Termination Date, the Authority and the City, through any authorized
representatives, shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect,
examine and copy all books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Minimum Improvements.
Such records shall be kept and maintained by Redeveloper through the Termination Date.
(b) The Redeveloper also agrees to submit to the Authority written reports so as to
allow the Authority to remain in compliance with reporting requirements under State statutes.
The Authority will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms.
Section 4.7. Playground. The Redeveloper shall construct the Playground portion of
the Minimum Improvements (the “Playground”) in conformity with the PUD for the
Redevelopment Property and with the Site Plan attached hereto as Schedule F, for the use and
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 23
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 13
enjoyment of residents and invitees of the Minimum Improvements and members of the general
public. The Playground shall incorporate amenities to be mutually agreed upon by the Authority
and Redeveloper. The parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper shall be responsible for
the cost of the maintenance and operation of the Playground (the “Maintenance”). By no later
than December 31, 2015, the Redeveloper agrees to submit to the City for review and approval a
plan for the maintenance and operation of the Playground (the “Maintenance Plan”). The City
will review and approve or reject the Maintenance Plan in writing within twenty (20) days after
the date of receipt of such Maintenance Plan from the Redeveloper. Any rejection shall set forth
in detail the reasons therefor. If the City rejects any Maintenance Plan in whole or in part, the
Redeveloper shall submit a new or corrected Maintenance Plan within twenty (20) days after
written notification to the Redeveloper of the rejection. The Redeveloper’s obligation to keep
and maintain the Playground pursuant to this Agreement shall terminate on the Termination
Date.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 24
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 14
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance.
(a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain at all times during the process of
constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and,
from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the Authority with
proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk --
Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the
Note, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form
of policy. The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in
form and content satisfactory to the Authority;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations,
contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual
liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits
against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each
occurrence (to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy
may be used). The Authority shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that
the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for
workers’ compensation.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense,
and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of
premiums on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements
under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar
businesses.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal
injury liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons
and/or property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of
$1,000,000, and shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers’ compensation insurance
respecting all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customarily carried by
like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure;
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 25
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 15
provided that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its
liability for workers’ compensation.
(c) All insurance required in this Article V shall be taken out and maintained in
responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper that are authorized under the laws
of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Redeveloper will deposit
annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates
or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. If
permitted by Redeveloper’s insurer at commercially reasonable rates, each policy shall contain a
provision that the insurer shall neither cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the
coverage provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the
Redeveloper and the Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification.
In lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella
policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the
Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers
as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of
damage exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any
portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will
forthwith repair, reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same
or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the
extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Redeveloper will
apply the net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to
the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof.
The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the
Minimum Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the
Redeveloper for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining
after completion of such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the
Redeveloper.
(e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements as set forth in
this Section, the Redeveloper shall have the option of: (i) paying to the Authority an amount
that, in the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal consultant, is sufficient to pay or redeem the
outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Note, or (ii) so long as the Redeveloper is the
owner of the Note, waiving its right to receive subsequent payments under the Note.
(f) The Redeveloper and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set
forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement.
Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the rights
of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any insurance proceeds shall, in all
respects, be subordinate and subject to the rights of any Holder under a Mortgage allowed
pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 26
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 16
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the development through
reimbursement of Public Redevelopment Costs. The Redeveloper understands that the Tax
Increments pledged to payment on the Note are derived from real estate taxes on the
Redevelopment Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, the
Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to
statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before
delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum
Improvements. The Redeveloper acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on
behalf of the Authority to sue the Redeveloper or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent
real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to
the county auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs,
expenses and reasonable attorney fees.
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to the Maturity Date it
will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment
Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof; or
(B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this
Agreement, except as provided in Section 5.1(e). The Redeveloper also agrees that it will not,
prior to the Maturity Date, seek exemption from property tax for the Redevelopment Property or
any portion thereof or transfer or permit the transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity
that is exempt from real property taxes and state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or
conveyed to the City in accordance with platting of the Redevelopment Property), or apply for a
deferral of property tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law.
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement.
(a) Upon commencement of construction of the Apartments, the Redeveloper shall, with
the Authority, execute one or more Assessment Agreements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, subd. 8, specifying an assessor’s minimum Market Value for each component of the
Minimum Improvements, together with the Parcel on which they are constructed. The amount of
the minimum Market Value of the Apartments shall be $17,250,000 as of January 2, 2016 and each
January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction by such dates. The amount of the
minimum Market Value of each Single-Family Home shall be $250,000 as of January 2, 2016 and
each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction by such dates.
(b) The Assessment Agreements shall be substantially in the form attached as Schedule
G. Nothing in the Assessment Agreements shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign a
market value to the property in excess of such assessor’s minimum Market Value. The Assessment
Agreements shall remain in force for the period specified in the Assessment Agreements, provided
that the Assessment Agreements for each Single-Family Home shall terminate upon the sale of each
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 27
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 17
Single-Family Home to an owner-occupant.
Section 6.4. Qualifications. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties
acknowledge and agree that:
(a) The provisions of Sections 6.1 and 6.2 hereof shall not apply to a Single-Family
Home in the Minimum Improvements from and after the date that such Single-Family Home is
substantially completed and sold to an owner.
(b) Upon Transfer of the Redevelopment Property or portion thereof to another
person or entity except for sales of the Single-Family Homes to owners, the Redeveloper will
remain obligated under Sections 6.1 and 6.2 hereof relating to such portion transferred, unless
the Redeveloper is released from such obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions of
Section 8.2(b) or 8.3 hereof.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 28
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 18
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally. (a) Before issuance of the Note, the Redeveloper shall submit to
the Authority or provide access thereto for review by Authority staff, consultants and agents,
evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that Redeveloper has available funds, or
commitments to obtain funds, whether in the nature of mortgage financing, equity, grants, loans,
or other sources sufficient for acquiring the Redevelopment Property and paying the cost of the
developing the Minimum Improvements, provided that any lender or grantor commitments shall
be subject only to such conditions as are normal and customary in the commercial lending
industry.
(b) If the Authority finds that the financing is sufficiently committed and adequate in
amount to provide for the undertakings described in paragraph (a), then the Authority shall notify
the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld
and either approval or rejection shall be given within ten (10) days from the date when the
Authority is provided the evidence of financing. A failure by the Authority to respond to such
evidence of financing shall be deemed to constitute an approval hereunder. If the Authority
rejects the evidence of financing as inadequate, it shall do so in writing specifying the basis for
the rejection. In any event the Redeveloper shall submit adequate evidence of financing within
ten (10) days after such rejection.
(c) In the event that there occurs a default under any Mortgage, the Redeveloper shall
cause the Authority to receive copies of any notice of default received by the Redeveloper from
the holder of such Mortgage. Redeveloper will include in any Mortgage documents a provision
giving the Authority the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of the
Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to the Redeveloper under the Mortgage
documents. In the event there is an event of default under this Agreement, the Authority will
transmit to the Holder of any Mortgage a copy of any notice of default given by the Authority
pursuant to Article IX of this Agreement.
Section 7.2. Modification; Subordination. The Authority agrees to subordinate its rights
under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage securing construction or permanent
financing, in accordance with the terms of a subordination agreement substantially in the form
attached as Schedule H, or such other form as the Authority reasonably approves.
Section 7.3. Authority Financing; Issuance of Notes. (a) Generally. In order to make
development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible, the Authority will reimburse the
Redeveloper for Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by the Redeveloper through issuance of the
Note in accordance with the terms of this Section. The Authority will issue the Note in one series,
secured by the Available Tax Increment from the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum
Improvements constructed thereon. At Redeveloper’s option, the Note will be issued to
Redeveloper under paragraph (b) of this Section, or issued to a third party under paragraph (c) of
this Section. No Note will be issued until demolition of existing buildings on the Redevelopment
Property has commenced.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 29
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 19
(b) Issuance to Redeveloper. (i) The Note issued to Redeveloper will be issued in the
maximum aggregate principal amount of $1,100,000, subject to the adjustment described in Section
7.4. The Note will be issued in substantially the form set forth in the Authorizing Resolution
attached as Schedule B. The Authorizing Resolution will be approved upon mutual determination
by the Authority and the Redeveloper of the principal amount of and payment schedule for the Note
in accordance with the terms of this Section 7.3. The obligation to deliver the Note is conditioned
upon (1) the Redeveloper having delivered to the Authority an investment letter for the Note in a
form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority; and (2) there being no uncured Event of Default by
the Redeveloper under this Agreement.
(ii) Upon issuance of the Note or on any date thereafter, the Redeveloper may request
the Authority to enter an advance of principal under the Note (a "Principal Advance") on the
ledger of such advances maintained by the Registrar (the "Principal Advance Ledger"), by
submitting to the Authority a certificate (the "Principal Advance Certificate") signed by the
Redeveloper’s duly authorized representative, containing the following: (1) a statement that each
cost identified in the certificate is a Public Redevelopment Cost as defined in this Agreement and
that no part of such cost has been included in any previous certification or any disbursement from
any other public financing source described in Article VII hereof, (2) evidence that each identified
Public Redevelopment Cost has been paid or incurred by or on behalf of the Redeveloper, and (3) a
statement that no uncured Event of Default by the Redeveloper has occurred and is continuing
under the Agreement. Within 20 days after receipt of the Principal Advance Certificate, the
Authority shall, if the Authority Representative has determined that all the aforementioned
requirements have been satisfied, so notify the Redeveloper and direct the Registrar to enter the
amount requested in the Principal Advance Ledger, such entry being dated as of the date of the
Principal Advance Certificate, provided that the aggregate amount of sums entered on the
Principal Advance Ledger shall not exceed $1,100,000. The Authority may, if not satisfied that
the conditions described herein have been met, return the Principal Advance Certificate with a
statement of the reasons why the Principal Advance Certificate is not acceptable and requesting
such further documentation or clarification as the Issuer may reasonably require.
(iii) The Note will bear interest at a rate of 5.5% percent and will be paid in semi-annual
installments on each February 1 and August 1, commencing with the first August 1 after Available
Tax Increment is anticipated to be received from the Minimum Improvements and concluding no
later than February 1 of the year following the last calendar year in which the Authority receives
Tax Increment from the TIF District. Interest on the Note issued to the Redeveloper will accrue
from the date of each Principal Advance described in clause (ii) of this paragraph (b). The payment
schedule for the Note will be calculated by assuming that interest accruing from the date of each
Principal Advance through and including the February 1 before the first payment date is
compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal.
(iv) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, pursuant to Section
469.1763, Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act, if Principal Advances for the maximum principal amount
of the Note have not been entered on the Principal Advance Ledger (i.e. “registered”) within five
years after the date of certification of the TIF District by the County, no additional Principal
Advances will be made and the Authority has no further obligation with respect to such un-
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 30
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 20
registered amounts.
(c) Issuance to Third Parties. (i) If the Redeveloper chooses to sell the Note to a third
party, the Redeveloper shall be solely responsible for securing a purchaser or purchasers of the
Note through private placement, and the Authority shall have no obligation to obtain a purchaser
or otherwise issue the Note except to a purchaser secured by the Redeveloper. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein, the Authority shall be entitled to review and approve all
underwriting criteria with respect to the Note, provided that approval will not be unreasonably
withheld. Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of the Contract, the Redeveloper
agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Authority, its officers, employees and agents
from any claim or action whatsoever arising in connection with issuance of the Note.
(ii) The Note will be issued and delivered upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
(1) the Redeveloper has secured a purchaser (or purchasers) of the Note on terms
acceptable to the Authority;
(2) each purchaser of the Note has provided an investment letter to the Authority in a
form acceptable to the Authority; and
(3) all conditions for the issuance of the Note have been satisfied.
(iii) If the Note is sold to a third party, the Note will be issued in the maximum
principal amount that provides $1,100,000 in proceeds disbursable to the Redeveloper (net of costs
of issuance, original issue discount, and capitalized interest). The aggregate principal amount of the
Note is subject to adjustment as described in Section 7.5. The Authority’s obligation to reimburse
the Redeveloper for the Public Redevelopment Costs is limited to the net proceeds of the Note,
after deducting all costs of issuance, bond discount and capitalized interest. As a condition of
disbursement of net proceeds of the Note, Redeveloper must submit to the Authority one or more
draw requests signed by the Redeveloper’s duly authorized representative, containing the
information required under Section 7.3(b)(ii), clauses (1) through (3). The Authority will
disburse net proceeds of the Note in the amount of the requested draw within 5 business days
after receipt of a request that complies with this paragraph. The parties agree and understand
that upon issuance of the Note, the Authority and Redeveloper may enter into a disbursing
agreement with a disbursing agent mutually chosen by the parties, which agreement will at a
minimum incorporate the substance of this paragraph. At Redeveloper’s request, the Note may
be issued as a so-called draw-down note, with the principal amount of the Note being advanced
from time to time pursuant to a draw request substantially similar to the procedure described in
this Section.
(iv) All amounts held by the Authority in accounts created under any resolution or
indenture in connection with issuance of the Note will be invested by the Authority or a trustee in
accordance with all restrictions for investments by municipal entities under Minnesota law. The
Authority or trustee will invest such amounts in accordance with the Authority’s normal investment
policies and will have no responsibility or liability to the Redeveloper regarding the types of
investments made or interest earned thereon.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 31
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 21
(v) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, as provided in Section
469.1763, Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act, the Note must be sold to a third party within five years after
the date of certification of the TIF District. Further, if the proceeds of the Note are not spent within
five years after certification of the TIF District by the County, or within a reasonable temporary
period (as that term is used in Section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended),
the amount of the proceeds not expended prior to the expiration of these time frames will be used to
prepay the Note.
(d) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Available Tax
Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Note will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest
on the Note. Redeveloper expressly acknowledges that estimates of Tax Increment prepared by
the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF District or this Agreement are
for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as representations on which the
Redeveloper may rely. If the Public Redevelopment Costs exceed the net proceeds of the Note,
such excess is the sole responsibility of Redeveloper.
Section 7.4. TBRA Grant. (a) To finance a portion of the environmental remediation
costs (the “Grant-Eligible Costs”) associated with the development of the Redevelopment
Property, the Authority will apply for a grant (the “Grant”) in the principal amount of $325,000
through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account (“TBRA”) Program
administered by the Metropolitan Council. Redeveloper acknowledges that if such Grant is
approved, the maximum principal amount of the Note will be decreased by the amount of the
Grant to reflect the benefit of the Grant to the Redeveloper. If the Grant is approved, the terms
of the remainder of this Section apply.
(b) The Authority will pay or reimburse the Redeveloper for Grant-Eligible Costs from
and to the extent of the grant proceeds from the Grant in accordance with the terms of the grant
agreement between the Authority and Metropolitan Council and the terms of this section.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if Grant-Eligible Costs exceed the amount to be
reimbursed under this Section, such excess shall be the sole responsibility of the Redeveloper
(except to the extent reimbursable under the Note).
(c) All disbursements will be made subject to the conditions precedent that on the date
of such disbursement:
(1) The Authority has received a written statement from the Redeveloper’s
authorized representative certifying with respect to each payment: (a) that none of the items
for which the payment is proposed to be made has formed the basis for any payment
theretofore made under this section or has been submitted as a Public Redevelopment Cost
under Section 3.3 hereof; (b) that each item for which the payment is proposed is a Grant-
Eligible Cost as described in the grant agreement, and (c) the Redeveloper reasonably
anticipates completion of the Grant-Eligible Costs and the Minimum Improvements in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 32
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 22
(2) No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute
such an Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of
grace or time elapse, shall have occurred and be continuing.
(3) No license or permit necessary for undertaking the Grant-Eligible Costs or
constructing the Minimum Improvements shall have been revoked or the issuance thereof
subjected to challenge before any court or other governmental authority having or asserting
jurisdiction thereover.
(4) Redeveloper has submitted, and the Authority has approved, a financing
commitment in accordance with Article VII hereof.
(d) Whenever the Redeveloper desires a disbursement to be made hereunder, which
shall be no more often than bi-weekly, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority a draw request
in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed on behalf of the Redeveloper
accompanied by paid invoices or other comparable evidence that the cost has been incurred and
paid or is payable by Redeveloper. Each draw request shall constitute a representation and warranty
by the Redeveloper that all representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement are true and
correct as of the date of such draw request.
(e) If the Redeveloper has performed all of its agreements and complied with all
requirements theretofore to be performed or complied with hereunder, including satisfaction of all
applicable conditions precedent contained in Article III hereof, the Authority shall make a
disbursement to the Redeveloper in the amount of the requested disbursement or such lesser amount
as shall be approved, within twenty Business Days after the date of the Authority’s receipt of the
draw request, or, if later, upon receipt of grant proceeds from the County.
(f) The making of the final disbursement by the Authority under this Section shall be
subject to the condition precedent that the Redeveloper shall be in compliance with all conditions
set forth in this Section and further, that the Authority shall have received a lien waiver from each
contractor for all work done and for all materials furnished by it for the Grant-Eligible Costs.
(g) The Authority may, in its sole discretion, without notice to or consent from any other
party, waive any or all conditions for disbursement set forth in this Article. However, the making of
any disbursement prior to fulfillment of any condition therefor shall not be construed as a waiver of
such condition, and the Authority shall have the right to require fulfillment of any and all such
conditions prior to authorizing any subsequent disbursement.
Section 7.5. TIF Lookback.
(a) Generally. The financial assistance to the Redeveloper under this Agreement is
based on certain assumptions regarding likely costs and expenses associated with constructing
the Apartments component of the Minimum Improvements. The Authority and the Redeveloper
agree that those assumptions will be reviewed at the times described in this Section, and that the
amount of Tax Increment assistance provided under Section 7.3 may be adjusted accordingly.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 33
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 23
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms have the
following definitions:
“Calculation Date” means 60 days after the earliest of (i) the date of Stabilization for the
Apartments; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the Apartments; or (iii) three
years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Apartments.
“Net Operating Income” means all net rental income from the Apartments received in the
last fiscal year prior to the Calculation Date, subject to the following adjustments: (i) if the
Apartments have not reached Stabilization as of the Calculation Date, income will be calculated
as the sum of actual rent, parking and miscellaneous income plus assumed rent, parking and
miscellaneous income for the space needed to reach 93% lease-up at rates equal to the average
rent and parking income from actual leases and miscellaneous income as of the Calculation Date;
(ii) from that total will be deducted actual fees, operating and management expenses as outlined
in the Lookback Pro Forma attached as Schedule E hereto (if Stabilization has occurred) or
estimated fees, operating and management expenses as if the Apartments were 93% leased (if
Stabilization has not occurred).
“Stabilization” means 93% of the Apartments are leased.
(c) Lookback Calculation. On the applicable Calculation Date, the Redeveloper shall
deliver to the Authority reasonable evidence of its actual annualized cumulative internal rate of
return (the “IRR”) from the Apartments, calculated as of the applicable Calculation Date, along
with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the Apartments assuming a sale in the tenth
year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Apartments. The IRR
shall be calculated based on equity, revenues and expenses in substantially in the format of the
Lookback Pro Forma. The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the Authority any background
documentation reasonably related to the financial data, upon written request from the Authority
or the Authority’s financial consultant. The Authority may, by written request, require
Redeveloper to deliver to the Authority a written certificate of a certified public accountant
regarding total redevelopment costs and revenues, to be provided at Redeveloper’s expense.
The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen percent (18%) shall be referred to as the
“Excess Percentage.” The Excess Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s equity in the
Apartments (as calculated for purposes of determining the IRR), is the “Participation Amount.”
If the Authority determines that there is a Participation Amount, the Authority shall deliver
written notice to the Redeveloper stating the Participation Amount. Upon delivery of such
notice, the Redeveloper shall arrange for repayment of fifty percent (50%) of the Participation
Amount to the Authority, upon terms mutually agreeable to both parties.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 34
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 24
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development. The Redeveloper represents and agrees
that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the
Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Redevelopment
Property and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of
Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Completion for the Apartments:
(a) Except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining
financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment
Property, or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to undertaking the
redevelopment contemplated under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this
Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be
made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power,
or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment
Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the
same, to any person or entity whether or not related in any way to the Redeveloper (collectively,
a “Transfer”), without the prior written approval of the Authority (whose approval will not be
unreasonably withheld, subject to the standards described in paragraph (b) of this Section) unless
the Redeveloper remains liable and bound by this Redevelopment Agreement in which event the
Authority’s approval is not required. Any such Transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this
Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term Transfer does not include
(i) acquisition of a controlling interest in Redeveloper by another entity or merger of
Redeveloper with another entity, or the acquisition or issuance of non-controlling interests in
Redeveloper; (ii) any sale, conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate; (iii) any sale of
the Single-Family Homes or parcels on which the Single-Family Homes are to be constructed; or
(iv) any lease of individual Apartment units.
(b) In the event the Redeveloper, upon Transfer of the Redevelopment Property or
any portion thereof either before or after issuance of the final Certificate of Completion, seeks to
be released from its obligations under this Redevelopment Agreement as to the portion of the
Redevelopment Property that is transferred, the Authority shall be entitled to require, except as
otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such release that:
(i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial
responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to
fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion
of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 35
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 25
(ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of
the Authority, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under
this Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred and
agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is
subject as to such portion; provided, however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any
other successor in interest whatsoever to, the Redevelopment Property, or any part
thereof, shall not, for whatever reason, have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and
shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement
or agreed to in writing by the Authority) deprive the Authority of any rights or remedies
or controls with respect to the Redevelopment Property, the Minimum Improvements or
any part thereof or the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of
the parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and
in equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent specifically provided
otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the
Redevelopment Property or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however
consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally,
or practically, to deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any rights or
remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the
Redevelopment Property that the Authority would have had, had there been no such
transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the
contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve
the Redeveloper, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise
with respect to the Redevelopment Property, from any of its obligations with respect
thereto.
(iii) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting
the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property governed by
this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority.
(iv) At the written request of Redeveloper, the Authority shall execute and
deliver to Redeveloper and the proposed transferee an estoppel certificate containing
commercially customary and reasonable certifications.
In the event the foregoing conditions are satisfied then the Redeveloper shall be released from its
obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is
transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed.
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants.
(a) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of
the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper releases from
and covenants and agrees that the Authority, the City, and the governing body members, officers,
agents, servants, and employees thereof (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 36
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 26
agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to
property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any
defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements.
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified
Parties of their obligations under this Agreement (including without limitation any failure by the
Authority to perform any procedure required under law in connection with establishment of the
TIF District), the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and
forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action,
or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising
from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction,
installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the Redevelopment Property.
(c) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of
the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall
not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Redeveloper or its
officers, agents, servants, or employees or any other person who may be about the
Redevelopment Property or Minimum Improvements.
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and
obligations of such entity and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or
employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof.
(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Indemnified Parties that are
members, officers, agents, servants, or employees, or other natural persons associated with the
City or Authority, the indemnities and agreements to hold harmless, and any other limitations of
liability set forth in this Section, shall only apply to the extent that such persons are acting in an
official capacity for the City or Authority, and not in any personal capacity.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 37
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 27
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default”
under this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this
Agreement, any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides
thirty (30) days written notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not
been cured within said thirty (30) days or, if the event is not reasonably curable within thirty (30)
days, the defaulting party does not, within such thirty-day period, provide assurances reasonably
satisfactory to the party providing notice of default that the event will be cured and will be cured
as soon as reasonably possible:
(a) Failure by any party to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation, or
agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement in all material respects.
(b) If, before issuance of the certificate of completion for all the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall
(i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United
States Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law, which action is not
dismissed within sixty (60) days after filing; or
(ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or
(iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due;
or
(iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in
Section 9.1 of this Agreement occurs and is continuing, the non-defaulting party may:
(a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement.
(b) Upon a default by the Redeveloper under this Agreement, the Authority may
terminate the Note and this Agreement.
(c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable, or administrative action, which
may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to
enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this
Agreement, provided that nothing contained herein shall give the Authority or City the right to
seek specific performance by Redeveloper of the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 38
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 28
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any
party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to
exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or
shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from
time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. To entitle the Authority to exercise any
remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be
required in this Article IX.
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the
other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be
deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 9.5. Attorney Fees. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the non-
defaulting party employs attorneys or incurs other expenses for the collection of payments due or
to become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or
agreement on the part of the defaulting party under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall,
within ten (10) days of written demand by the non-defaulting party, pay to the non-defaulting
party the reasonable fees of such attorneys actually incurred and such other reasonable third-
party expenses actually incurred by the non-defaulting party.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 39
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 29
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable. The
Authority, City, and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and
agree that no member, official, or employee of the Authority or City shall have any personal
interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee
participate in any decision relating to the Agreement that affects his personal interests or the
interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he, directly or indirectly, is
interested. No member, official, or employee of the City or Authority shall be personally liable
to the Redeveloper, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City
or Authority or for any amount that may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any
obligations under the terms of the Agreement.
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its
successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements
provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, State, and local equal
employment and non-discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that until the Maturity Date,
the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Redevelopment Property to
the operation of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.1 hereof, and shall not
discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental
or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be
erected thereon, or any part thereof.
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this
Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in
the Redevelopment Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the
provisions and covenants of this Agreement.
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be
disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by any party to the
others shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or
to such other addresses as any party may notify the others):
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 40
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 30
To Redeveloper: Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Attn: Dan Hunt
24 University Avenue NE, Suite 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
To Authority: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Attn: Executive Director
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518
To City: City of St. Louis Park
Attn: City Manager
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518
Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.8. Recording. The Authority or City may record this Agreement and any
amendments thereto with the County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for
recording. The Redeveloper’s obligations under this Agreement are covenants running with the
land for the term of this Agreement, enforceable by the Authority and City against the
Redeveloper, its successor and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Redevelopment
Property, or any part thereof or any interest therein.
Section 10.9. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement
approved by the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper.
Section 10.10. Authority and City Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval
required by the Authority or City under this Agreement may be given by the Authority
Representative, except that final approval of issuance of the Note shall be made by the
Authority’s board of commissioners.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 41
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, the City, and Redeveloper have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above
written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
_________, 2013 by Sue Santa, the President of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
_________, 2013 by Tom Harmening, the Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 42
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 S-2
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
_________, 2013 by Jeff Jacobs, the Mayor of the City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
_________, 2013 by Tom Harmening, the City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, on behalf
of the City.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 43
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 S-3
ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________, 2013, by ___________________, the ____________of Eliot Park Apartments,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 44
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 A-1
SCHEDULE A
REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Lots 4 to 28 inclusive, Richmond 3rd Addition, including vacated 22nd Street and that part of
Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing at a point on East line of
West Half of Northeast Quarter, distant 534 feet South from Northeast corner thereof; thence
West 157.5 feet to Northeast corner of Lot 19, Richmond 3rd Addition; thence South along said
addition to center line of Cedar Lake Road; thence Northeasterly along same to East line of West
Half of Northeast Quarter; thence North along said East line to point of beginning.
And, that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the center line of Cedar Lake Road where the East line of the
West Half of said Northeast Quarter intersects said centerline; thence Northeasterly along the
center line of said Cedar Lake Road to a point 75 feet Northeasterly from the point of
intersection of said East line of said West Half of Northeast Quarter with the center of said Cedar
Lake Road; thence North and parallel with the said East line of said West Half of Northeast
Quarter of said Section 8 to the center line of the vacated alley; thence Southwest parallel with
the North line of said Cedar Lake Road 75 feet more or less to the East line of said West Half of
the Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said West Half of Northeast Quarter to
the point of beginning.
(The registered portion of which is as follows:)
Lots 25 and 27 in Richmond 3rd Addition,
Lot 28, Richmond 3rd Addition,
Lot 10, Richmond 3rd Addition.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 45
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-1
SCHEDULE B
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND
PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS TAXABLE
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 20__
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of its Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF
District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), and have adopted a tax increment
financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. In
connection with the TIF District, the Authority and City have approved a Contract for Private
Redevelopment (the “Agreement”) between the Authority, the City, and Eliot Park Apartments,
LLC (the “Owner”).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the
Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF
District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that
it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Note,
Series 20__ (the “Note”) for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of the
Project.
1.02. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note.
(a) The Authority hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to issue the
Note, and delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is
to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement. All capitalized terms in this resolution have
the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise.
(b) The Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery, shall mature no later than
___________ and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.5 percent per annum from the respective
dates of entry of each Principal Advance on the Principal Advance Ledger (as described in
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 46
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-2
Section 3.6(f) of the Agreement) to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The Note is issued in
accordance with Section 7.3 of the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount adjusted as of the date of issue:
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 47
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-3
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $_____________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 20__
Date
Rate of Original Issue
5.5% ___________, 20__
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) for value
received, certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
or registered assigns (the “Owner”), solely from the sources and in the manner hereinafter
provided, the principal sum of $______ or so much thereof as has been from time to time
advanced (the "Principal Amount"), as provided in the Agreement defined hereafter, together
with interest on the unpaid balance thereof accrued from the date of original issue hereof at the
rate of 5.5 percent per annum (the "Stated Rate"). This Note is given in accordance with that
certain Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated ________, 2013 (the “Agreement”), between
the Authority, the City and the Owner and the authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly
adopted by the Authority on ______________, 20__. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings
provided in the Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on August 1, 20___
and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including _______________ (“Payment
Dates”) in the amounts set forth on the attached payment schedule, payable solely from the
sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then
to unpaid principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest accruing from the respective dates of entry of each Principal
Advance on the Principal Advance Ledger through and including February 1, 20___ will be
compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal.
Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30-day months.
3. Available Tax Increment.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 48
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-4
(a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely from and in the
amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean, on each Payment Date, ninety-five
percent (95%) of the Tax Increment attributable to the Minimum Improvements and
Redevelopment Property that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months
preceding the Payment Date.
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this
Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure
of the Authority to pay the entire amount of principal or interest payable on this Note on any
Payment Date shall not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and
interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax Increment. If on any Payment Date there is
available to the Authority insufficient Available Tax Increment to pay the scheduled Payment due
on such date, the amount of such deficiency shall be deferred and paid, without interest thereon, on
the next Payment Date on which the Authority has available to it Available Tax Increment in excess
of the amount necessary to pay the scheduled amount due on such subsequent Payment Date. The
Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that
may remain after the final Payment on ______ 1, 20__.
4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event
of Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all
Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the
Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid,
without interest thereon, within thirty (30) days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event
of Default is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written
notice to the Owner in accordance with the Agreement.
5. Prepayment.
(a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note is prepayable
in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. If the Authority
prepays the Note in part, the prepayment will be applied first to accrued interest and then to the
outstanding principal amount of the Note in inverse order of principal installments due. Ten days’
prior notice of any such prepayment shall be given by first-call mail by the Registrar to the
registered owner of the Note. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any
other regular Payment otherwise required to be made under this Note.
(b) Upon receipt by the Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the
Participation Amount as described in Section 3.5 of the Agreement, fifty percent (50%) of such
Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the
principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of
such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note.
Upon request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the
outstanding principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this
paragraph.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 49
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-5
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is in the total principal amount of $_________,
issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and administrative costs of a Project
undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047,
and is issued pursuant to the Resolution, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174
to 469.179, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable
solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This
Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of
Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority.
Neither the State of Minnesota nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the
principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax
Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this
Note or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth
therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the
principal office of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner’s
attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written
instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such
transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge
required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be
issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing
interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 7.3 of the Agreement, this Note shall not be
transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such
transfer and the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration
and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen,
and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the
Authority according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been
performed in due form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 50
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-6
Executive Director President
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register
of the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Date of
Registration
Registered Owner
Signature of
City Finance Director
Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
Federal Tax I.D No. _____________
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 51
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-7
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be
payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of
the month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Controller to perform the
functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall
be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the
Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of
transfers and exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not
be transferred to any person other than an Affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner unless
the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the transferor, in a
form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and prospectus
delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may close
the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each
Payment Date and until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly
cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar
for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement
on such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur
no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 52
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-8
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the
Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for
any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or
exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become
mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount,
maturity dates and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated
Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment
of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case
the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it
that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing
to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory
to it, in which both the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so
surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be
given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new
Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note
shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until
delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to
the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and
interest on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note. Available Tax
Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in accordance
with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution.
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal
thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains
unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no
purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority
irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the
Available Tax Increment in an amount equal to the Payment then due, or the actual Available
Tax Increment, whichever is less. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 53
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-9
shall be transferred to the Authority’s account for the TIF District upon the termination of the
Note in accordance with its terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in
whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the
pledge on the Note.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby
authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all
proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information
as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the
same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known
to them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 54
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 B-10
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority ________, 20__
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 55
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 C-1
SCHEDULE C
EASEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT is made as of _____________, 2013 by ELIOT PARK
APARTMENTS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Grantor”), in favor of the City of
St. Louis Park, a public body corporate and politic and political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota (“Grantee”).
Recitals
A. Grantor is the fee owner of certain property in Hennepin County, Minnesota described in
Exhibit A hereto (the “Property”), a portion of which Property includes the Sidewalk Easement
Area, as described therein.
B. Grantor, Grantee, and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“Authority”) have entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of __________,
2013 (the “Contract”), pursuant to which Grantor will construct certain improvements on the
Property (the “Improvements”).
C. The Contract also requires the Grantor to construct a sidewalk across a portion of the
Property (the “Sidewalk”) and to execute an easement for sidewalk purposes.
D. In accordance with the Contract, Grantor desires to grant to the Grantee a sidewalk easement
within the Sidewalk Easement Area, according to the terms and conditions contained herein.
Agreement
In consideration of the mutual covenants made herein, the parties agree as follows:
Terms of Easement
1. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged
by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to the Grantee a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for
sidewalk purposes over, under, across, and through the Sidewalk Easement Area.
2. Warranty of Title. Grantor warrants it is the owner of the Property and has the right, title
and capacity to convey to the Grantee the easement herein.
3. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses,
damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorney's fees, or losses
resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release
of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on the
Sidewalk Easement Area prior to the date of this instrument.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 56
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 C-2
4. Construction, Maintenance and Repairs. Grantor hereby agrees to be solely responsible for
the costs of construction of the Sidewalk in the Sidewalk Easement Area, and to be responsible for
the costs of maintenance, repair and replacement to the same extent.
5. Public Benefit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 604A.21-27 (the “Act”),
Grantor (and any other Owner as defined in the Act) is protected from liability with respect to
accidents occurring in the Sidewalk Easement Area. Without waiving any statutory limits on
liability and except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner of
the Property, its agents and/or employees, the Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the
owner of the Property harmless from and against any claims, losses, costs or liabilities suffered
or incurred by reason of claims brought by third parties against the owner of the Property by
reason of any claims based on the design, construction, maintenance, and/or use of the Sidewalk.
6. Uninterrupted Flow. The Grantor shall do nothing to prohibit or discourage the free and
uninterrupted flow of pedestrian traffic on the Sidewalk in the Sidewalk Easement Area.
7. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and
bind and benefit the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 57
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 C-3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument as of the day
and year written above.
ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
By
Its ________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________, 2013,
by _______________, the ____________________ of Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
This document was drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 58
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 C-4
EXHIBIT A to EASEMENT
Legal Descriptions
1. The “Property”:
2. The “Sidewalk Easement Area”:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 59
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 D-1
SCHEDULE D
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), the
City of St. Louis Park, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) entered into a
certain Contract for Private Redevelopment dated __________, 2013 (the “Contract”); and
WHEREAS, the Contract contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in
Articles III and IV thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is
able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this
certification;
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical
improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the
Redeveloper have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the
Contract have been performed by the Redeveloper, and this Certificate is intended to be a
conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of
Articles III and IV of the Contract related to completion of the Minimum Improvements, but any
other covenants in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated: _______________, 20__.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Authority Representative
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 60
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 D-2
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
20__ by ______________________, the __________________ of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 61
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 E-1
SCHEDULE E
LOOKBACK PRO FORMA
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 62
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 F-1
SCHEDULE F
SITE PLAN
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 63
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-1
SCHEDULE G
FORM OF ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
and
ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATION
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
This Document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 64
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-2
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
THIS ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT, made on or as of the ____ day of _______, 20__
(the “Agreement”), is by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a
public body, corporate and politic (the “Authority”) and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority, the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”) and Redeveloper have entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated ___________, 2013 (the “Redevelopment Contract”), pursuant to which
the Authority is to facilitate redevelopment of certain property in the City hereinafter referred to
as the “Property” and legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract the Redeveloper is obligated to
construct certain improvements upon the Property referred to as the [insert name of component];
and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper desire to establish a minimum market value
for the Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 8; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the
preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements and have inspected such
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes
for the Property described in Exhibit A, together with the portion of the Minimum Improvements
designated as [insert component] constructed thereon, shall be $___________ as of January 2,
2016, notwithstanding the progress of construction by such date, and as of each January 2
thereafter until termination of this Agreement under Section 2 hereof.
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and
effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of the following: [ for each Single-
Family Home insert: (a) the Authority’s receipt of evidence from the Redeveloper that the
Single-Family Home has been sold to an owner-occupant;] (a) [(b)] the date of receipt by the
Authority of the final payment from Hennepin County of Tax Increments from the Eliot Park
Tax Increment Financing District, or (b) [(c)] the date when the Note, as defined in the
Redevelopment Contract, has been fully paid, defeased or terminated in accordance with its
terms.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 65
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-3
The event referred to in Section 2(a), (b), [or (c)] of this Agreement shall be evidenced
by a certificate or affidavit executed by the Authority.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded by the Authority. The Redeveloper
shall pay all costs of recording.
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Redevelopment Contract between the Authority
and the Redeveloper.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors
and assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all
actions required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery
of this Agreement.
7. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge
and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements,
amendments and modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be
required for correcting any inadequate, or incorrect, or amended description of the Property or
the Minimum Improvements or for carrying out the expressed intention of this Agreement,
including, without limitation, any further instruments required to delete from the description of
the Property such part or parts as may be included within a separate assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be
amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties
hereto.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 66
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-4
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 20__
by ____________________, the President of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 20__
by ____________________, the Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 67
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-5
ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________,
20__, by __________________, the ______________ of Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 68
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-6
CERTIFICATION BY CITY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to
be constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for
the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the values assigned to the
land and improvements are reasonable.
City Assessor for the City of St. Louis Park
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________,
20__, by _____________________, the City Assessor of the City of St. Louis Park.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 69
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 G-7
Exhibit A of Assessment Agreement
Legal Description of Property
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 70
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 H-1
SCHEDULE H
FORM OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made as of this _____
day of __________, 20__, between _______________ (the “Lender”), whose address is at
_________________________, and the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (“Authority”), whose address is 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 55416.
RECITALS
A. Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Redeveloper”), is the owner of certain real property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota
and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”).
B. Lender has made a mortgage loan to Redeveloper in the original principal amount
of $__________ (the “Loan”). The Loan is the evidenced and secured by the following
documents:
(i) a certain promissory note (the “Note”) made by Redeveloper dated
__________, 20__, in the amount of $___________; and
(ii) a certain mortgage, security agreement and fixture financing statement
(the “Mortgage”) made by Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, filed __________,
20__, as Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________
encumbering the Property; and
(iii) a certain assignment of leases and rents (the “Assignment”) made by
Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, filed __________, 20__, as Hennepin County
Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________ encumbering the Property.
The Note, the Mortgage, the Assignment, and all other documents and instruments
evidencing, securing and executed in connection with the Loan, are hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “Loan Documents.”
C. Authority is the owner and holder of certain rights under a certain Contract for
Private Redevelopment, dated _________, 2013 (the “Contract”), by and between Redeveloper
and Authority.
D. Redeveloper is entitled under the Contract to acquire a certain Tax Increment
Revenue Note, Series 20__ in the original principal amount of $____________ (the “TIF Note”).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and as an inducement to Lender
to make the Loan, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto represent, warrant and agree as follows:
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 71
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 H-2
1. Consent. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is making the Loan to the
Redeveloper and consents to the same. The Authority also consents to and approves the
collateral assignment of the Contract and TIF Note (when and if issued) by the Redeveloper to
the Lender as collateral for the Loan; provided, however, that this consent shall not deprive the
Authority of or otherwise limit any of the Authority’s rights or remedies under the Contract and
TIF Note and shall not relieve the Redeveloper of any of its obligations under the Contract and
TIF Note; provided further, however, the limitations to the Authority’s consent contained in this
Paragraph 1 are subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 below.
2. Subordination. The Authority hereby agrees that the rights of the Authority with
respect to [_____________________] under the Contract are and shall remain subordinate and
subject to liens, rights and security interests created by the Loan Documents and to any and all
amendments, modifications, extensions, replacements or renewals of the Loan Documents;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed as subordinating (a) the requirement
contained in the Contract the Property be used in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.3
of the Contract, (b) the Authority’s rights under the TIF Note to suspend payments in accordance
with the TIF Note, and (c) the Authority’s rights under the Assessment Agreement referenced in
Section 6.3 of the Contract.
3. Notice to Authority. Lender agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to
notify Authority of the occurrence of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper under the Loan
Documents, in accordance with Section 7.2 of the Contract. The Lender shall not be bound by
the other requirements in Section 7.2 of the Contract.
4. Statutory Exception. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter, remove or affect
Lender’s obligation under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029 to use the Property in conformity
to Section 10.3 of the Contract.
5. No Assumption. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is not a party to the
Contract and by executing this Agreement does not become a party to the Contract, and
specifically does not assume and shall not be bound by any obligations of the Redeveloper to the
Authority under the Contract, and that the Lender shall incur no obligations whatsoever to the
Authority except as expressly provided herein.
6. Notice from Authority. So long as the Contract remains in effect, the Authority
agrees to give to the Lender copies of notices of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper
under the Contract.
7. Governing Law. This Agreement is made in and shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
8. Successors. This Agreement and each and every covenant, agreement and other
provision hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, including any person who acquires title to the Property
through the Lender of a foreclosure of the Mortgage.
9. Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision hereof shall not
render any other provision or provisions herein contained unenforceable or invalid.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 72
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 H-3
10. Notice. Any notices and other communications permitted or required by the
provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given
or served by depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, or any official successor
thereto, designated as registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing adequate
postage, or delivery by reputable private carrier and addresses as set forth above.
11. Transfer of Title to Lender. The Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a
transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure sale, acquires title to the Property pursuant to
a foreclosure, or a deed in lieu thereof, the Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall not be bound by
the terms and conditions of the Contract except as expressly herein provided. Further the
Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at
foreclosure sale acquires title to the Property pursuant to a foreclosure sale or a deed in lieu
thereof, then the Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall be entitled to all rights conferred upon the
Redeveloper under the Contract, provided that no condition of default exists and remains
uncured beyond applicable cure periods in the obligations of the Redeveloper under the Contract.
12. Estoppel. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender, for the
purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that:
(a) No default or event of default by Redeveloper exists under the terms of the
Contract on the date hereof;
(b) The Contract has not been amended or modified in any respect, nor has any
material provision thereof been waived by either the Authority or the
Redeveloper, and the Contract is in full force and effect;
(c) Such other reasonable certifications as the Lender may request.
13. Amendments. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender for the
purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that
Authority will not agree to any amendment or modification to the or any TIF Note issued under
the Contract that materially affects the collection of Available Tax Increment (as defined in the
Contract) in any way affects the Property without the Lender’s written consent.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 73
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 H-4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed and delivered as of the day
and year first written above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
___________, 20__, by _______________________, the President of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of such public
body.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
___________, 20__, by _______________________, the Executive Director of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of such
public body.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 74
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 H-5
[LENDER]
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
___________, 20__, by _______________________ and ______________________ the
__________________, of __________________, a ________________, on behalf of
such____________________.
Notary Public
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 75
420588v4 MNI SA285-101 H-6
Exhibit A of Subordination Agreement
PROPERTY
Economic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Page 76
June 20, 2012CEDAR LAKE ROAD3 a r c h i t e c tsEliot ParkSOUTH WEST AERIAL PERSPECTIVEEconomic Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 7a) Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLCPage 78
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Presentation of CenterPoint Energy Grant
RECOMMENDED ACTION: A representative from CenterPoint Energy will be in attendance
to present a grant in the amount of $2,500 for a civil defense outdoor warning siren.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept this grant?
SUMMARY: CenterPoint Energy is graciously awarding a $2,500 grant to the Fire Department
for the purchase of a civil defense outdoor warning siren.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This grant will be used for the purchase of
a civil defense outdoor warning siren
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Not applicable.
Prepared & Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer , Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Retirement Recognition for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present a plaque
to Scott Anderson for over 31 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City
Council.
Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson will be in attendance for the presentation at the
beginning of the meeting. The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present Scott with a
plaque in recognition of his years of service to the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Title: Retirement Recognition for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT SCOTT ANDERSON
WHEREAS, Scott began his employment as a Laborer with the City of St. Louis Park over
31 years ago on May 17, 1982, was promoted to Water Treatment Operator, then through
personal effort and education was subsequently appointed Utility Superintendent in 1991; and
WHEREAS, Scott has worked to ensure clean and safe water for St. Louis Park residents
and implemented new systems, procedures, and equipment to reduce energy usage and improve
utility operations; and
WHEREAS, Scott oversaw the rehabilitation of all City water treatment plants, painting of
all water storage facilities, and expansion of electrical generation capacity so basic water and
sewer needs can be met during major power outages; and
WHEREAS, Scott liked to add humor and fun to work as evidenced by his developing and
implementing the “Grit Pit” and creating the “highly regarded and often referred to” backwater
valve video; and
WHEREAS, Scott served as the Chair of the Water For People organization from 1996 –
2006 where he raised thousands of dollars to fund sustainable drinking water across the globe
and traveled to Guatemala to visit water projects in development, and also served as Chair of the
Minnesota Section American Water Works Association (AWWA) during 2006 – 2007; and
WHEREAS, Scott is a tireless volunteer, attending two mission trips to Russia to deliver
humanitarian aid to orphanages, and traveling the state to give presentations on drinking water,
the environment, and healthy working relationships to school kids and utility operators; and
WHEREAS, Scott was honored with the Spirit of St. Louis Park Award in 1990, the Water
For People “Kenneth J. Miller Founders’ Award” in 2006, the “Leonard N. Thompson Award”
from the Minnesota Water Works Association in 2009, and the “George Warren Fuller Award”
from the American Water Works Association in 2011; and
WHEREAS, Scott will be remembered for his favorite accomplishment (a 1990 video
entitled “Quenching Your Thirst”), his wise, witty, and sometimes scatterbrained nature, his
ability to translate for engineers, for not viewing a glass as half full or empty but overflowing,
for bringing joy to those around him, and for his motto “Life is Tremendous”; and
WHEREAS, Scott is planning numerous outdoor retirement activities with his wife Jo at
their new country home near Isle and thoroughly enjoying his precious granddaughter Sage;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Utilities
Superintendent Scott Anderson for his great contributions and 31 years of dedicated service to
the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 2b) Page 3
Title: Retirement Recognition for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Presentation: 2c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Retirement Recognition for Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present a plaque
to Luke Stemmer for over 36 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City
Council.
Fire Chief Luke Stemmer will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the
meeting. The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present Chief Stemmer with a plaque in
recognition of his years of service to the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 2c) Page 2
Title: Retirement Recognition for Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO FIRE CHIEF LUKE STEMMER
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 36
years ago on August 16, 1976; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer has worked his way from Firefighter to Chief in St. Louis Park
by virtue of his exceptional leadership and technical skills in firefighting, emergency medical
services, fire prevention and emergency management, along with his outgoing personality and
genuine care and compassion for others; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer represents the City and has served in leadership positions on
many boards, committees, and agencies such as Children First, Former Chair of Minnesota
Emergency Management Association, Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association, Statewide
Mutual Aid Association, Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Code Committee Chair, Former Chair of
Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Association, Former Chair of Southwest Mutual Aid Association;
and member of Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers and International Association of
Fire Chiefs; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer will be missed throughout the county where he has been known
as the “Ghost,” for mysteriously showing up at fires in other cities; and
WHEREAS, City Manager Tom Harmening will not need to tell Chief Stemmer to stay off
building rooftops any longer; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer was named 2009 Fire Officer of the Year by the Minnesota
State Fire Chiefs Association for his integrity, loyalty and dedication to the fire service; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer has worked tirelessly to supervise construction of two new Fire
Stations with a special Fallen Firefighter Memorial; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer will spend his retirement years traveling with his wife Julie,
spending time with sons Luke, Seth, and Hunter, riding his Harley Davidson, and will finally
have time to unshelve and restore his 1963 Split-Window Corvette;
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer is known to staff and the public for his kindness, sense of
humor, great listening skills, willingness to share his historical knowledge, patience,
trustworthiness, and kind hearted compassion that causes him to get emotional; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Fire Chief Luke
Stemmer for his great contributions and over 36 years of dedicated service to the City of St.
Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 2c) Page 3
Title: Retirement Recognition for Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 22, 2013
The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake
Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Steve Hallfin and Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director
of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Infrastructure
Manager (Mr. Merkley), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications
Specialist (Mr. Rose), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Lisa Peilen (MAC Commissioner) and Chad Laqve (MAC Director of Environment).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 6 & May 13, 2013
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for May 6th and the
proposed study session agenda for May 13th.
2. Metropolitan Airports Commission Update
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and introduced MAC Commissioner Lisa Peilen and
MAC Director of Environment Chad Laqve.
Mr. Laqve presented information regarding the FAA’s initiative to implement Performance
Based Navigation (PBN) and explained that PBN is the FAA’s next generation air transportation
system intended to update communication and navigation equipment to make use of air space
safer and more efficient. He presented a graphic depicting current radar vectors as well as Area
Navigation (RNAV) and indicated that use of this technology is several years out and will
require significant capital investment and training for flight crews. He stated that a benefit of
RNAV relates to arrival operations called Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) that allows aircraft
to maintain a constant rate of descent to the point of touchdown resulting in a significant amount
of fuel burn reduction as well as reduced carbon emissions and reduced noise typically beyond
seven miles from the airport. He presented a timeline of events leading to MAC action in
November 2012 stating MAC’s support of partial implementation excluding runways 30L and
30R. He also presented a map of runway 30R departures during north flow operations that show
a fairly minimal change as it relates to departure operations and noted the FAA is not evaluating
this for implementation. He reviewed next steps and pointed out that decisions about where and
how aircraft fly are made solely by the FAA and the FAA is in the process of evaluating the
possibility of partial implementation as supported by the MAC. He stated the future of possible
RNAV departure procedures off runways 30L and 30R to the northwest of the airport is
unknown at this time. He indicated if the safety review turns out favorable, the FAA is looking
at a July 2014 implementation for arrivals to all runways and September 2014 for departures. He
indicated that MAC’s Executive Director sent a letter to the FAA in February 2013 requesting
that the FAA allow a period of integration to collect data and to allow a year of operational
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2013
integration before engaging in further procedures to the northwest of the airport. He stated the
MAC’s letter also urged the FAA to rely on local leadership in this process, to look at other
communities where RNAV has been implemented, to engage in early coordination with local
leaders, and to provide adequate resource allocation. He advised that further information is
available on the website at www.macnoise.com and the public can attend quarterly public input
meetings and/or Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meetings.
Councilmember Santa asked if RNAV has been implemented elsewhere.
Mr. Laqve replied that RNAV has been implemented at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport on all
runways and noted the Dallas-Fort Worth airport does not share the Minneapolis-St. Paul
airport’s proximity to dense residential areas. He stated that RNAV was also implemented in
Atlanta with very little opposition and Atlanta did not experience the type of concern that was
expressed in the Minneapolis region.
Councilmember Mavity stated there was significant community pushback after the FAA’s plans
were announced resulting in delayed or partial implementation and asked if the public will have
further opportunities to influence the actual rollout of these plans.
Commissioner Peilen replied that this decision is 100% within the purview of the FAA and
stated she felt the public involvement had an impact on MAC.
Councilmember Mavity requested information regarding noise/air pollution and environmental
impacts.
Mr. Laqve stated there was information presented at the open houses regarding the effect of these
procedures on the noise around the airport and the required level of environmental review for
these types of actions is entirely within the FAA’s jurisdiction, adding there have been varying
levels of environmental review done by the FAA. He encouraged local jurisdictions to remain
involved in this process adding it is not within MAC’s jurisdiction to make a decision on the
appropriate level of environmental review.
Mayor Jacobs thanked Mr. Laqve and Commissioner Peilen for the update.
3. 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Program and Contracts Update
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and two options for revenue sharing with the contractor.
He also presented revenue sharing projections for Alternate No. 1 and Alternate No. 2.
Councilmember Sanger requested information regarding the method used for calculating the
City’s revenue sharing, adding she was very concerned there would never be any profits to share.
Mr. Rardin stated the revenue sharing with Eureka was calculated based on the numbers given to
the City as part of the billing process every month and the revenue sharing with Waste
Management will be calculated in the same manner. He added the contract with Waste
Management would include audit rights by the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was skeptical about these formulas where the City is relying
on someone else’s interpretation of the numbers to determine how much revenue is shared with
the City. She stated if the contract can specify the City’s rights to look at raw data and perform
its own calculations and reassess Waste Management’s interpretations then she would support
Alternate No. 1.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2013
Councilmember Santa agreed and requested information about revenue sharing experienced in
other communities who are under contract with Waste Management.
Mr. Merkley explained that the processing fee being proposed is considerably lower than the
current processing fee used in the Eureka Recycling revenue sharing formula/contract. Waste
Management is agreeable with a higher processing fee and assuming all cost/revenue risk
(Alternate No. 2) or a lowering of their processing fee to allow for a greater sharing of profits
and risks (Alternate No. 1). He stated that Waste Management uses the same formula (Alternate
No. 1) with every community it contracts with, and all their current contracts provide for revenue
sharing.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Mavity, Santa, and Spano expressed support for Alternate
No. 1.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was bothered by the $40 annual fee for organic waste
collection and did not feel the City should charge extra for organics recycling. She felt the cost
should be borne by everyone as part of the rate structure or by imposing a penalty on those not
participating in organics recycling.
Councilmember Mavity respectfully disagreed and stated residents are encouraged to participate
in organics recycling but because the City has not offered organics recycling in the past there is
some risk that the recycling will be done improperly and the organics recycling program would
fail and need to be discontinued. She stated she would rather implement the organics recycling
program in a more controlled fashion and revisit the organics recycling rates later.
Councilmember Spano stated he was fine with charging $40 for organics recycling noting this
amount is half the amount normally charged as noted in the staff report. He urged the City to
continue to promote awareness of the organics recycling program after the initial rollout of the
program.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council revisit the Ordinance regarding cart storage and
stated a lot of residents may not have adequate storage for three carts.
Mr. Rardin stated the City has a cart storage requirement that allows residents to store carts in
certain locations.
Mr. Merkley advised that staff has been working on a public education campaign and once the
contract is in place, both contractors will be available for questions.
4. Southwest LRT Update
Mr. Locke presented the staff report. He advised that an open house on TSAAP was held last
week and information from that meeting will go online for further public input and comment.
He then presented draft layouts for the Wooddale Station with and without freight rail present.
Councilmember Mavity felt the City should seriously look at the cost to complete the fixes on
the Highway 7 bridge including improved sight lines and traffic controls.
Mayor Jacobs stated that traffic controls on 36th and Wooddale may need to be added.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2013
Mr. Harmening advised the City is working with the Project Office to review this entire area
from a traffic perspective that includes 36th and Wooddale and possible signalization on the
frontage roads.
Mr. Locke stated the Project Office is currently calculating what will be needed for park and ride
facilities on the whole system, adding a large portion of ridership is expected to come from park
and ride facilities. He stated the Project Office felt that Beltline’s proximity to Highway 100
makes it a logical place for a 500-600 vehicle park and ride location; however, the City has
responded that it does not want to use premium sites for a parking lot and urged the Project
Office to come up with other ideas. He added the Excelsior and Grand project has
approximately 400 parking spaces integrated into the development and could serve as a model
for integrating parking into a redevelopment project.
Mayor Jacobs expressed concern that this area will become one of the worst intersections in
Hennepin County with the heavy concentration of uses making it impossible to get through the
area safely and efficiently.
Mr. Locke presented an update regarding the Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) site
selection process and advised the Project Office will be presenting the list of potential OMF sites
to the Business Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee this week. He advised
that staff is currently in the process of preparing a one page summary containing a timetable of
key decisions.
Councilmember Santa requested that the summary include a glossary of acronyms and an
indication of governmental authority, i.e., State, Federal, or County.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the next study session would focus on Beltline Station Area planning
and other appropriate updates. She added that the website is also being updated continuously.
Councilmember Santa urged the City to consider ways to include the City’s various boards and
commissions in this process.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. March 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. First Quarter Investment Report (January – March 2013)
7. Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Hunt Associates Related to Eliot
Park Project
8. Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report: April 2013
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 6, 2013
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1. HR Update
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and an update on the reorganization of the Parks
Department and the Public Works Department, in particular the operations and maintenance
functions of these departments, which was reorganized as part of the study conducted over the
winter months. He advised this reorganization was implemented as a result of the City’s
aggressive Capital Improvement Plan and significant upcoming projects and as part of the City’s
succession planning; in addition, this reorganization will serve to better maximize the operations
and maintenance resources that were previously divided into two separate departments. He
presented an organizational chart for the Operations and Recreation Department, formerly the
Public Works Department, and an organizational chart for the Engineering Department. He
stated that Ms. Walsh will oversee the Operations and Recreation Department noting that the
operations activities in Public Works have now been moved under Ms. Walsh’s purview and Ms.
Walsh will continue to oversee the activities of the Parks and Recreation Department. He
indicated Mr. Rardin is now Director of the Engineering Department and he will continue to
focus on the Capital Improvement Plan as well as assist with the transition to the new refuse
contractor. He stated that Mr. Rardin will also be available to work with the new Utilities
Manager and with Mr. Hanson following Mr. Anderson’s retirement in June. He advised that
following Ms. Adler’s departure, a Water Resources Manager position was created and filled and
the Engineering Program Coordinator position will be responsible for the permitting and traffic
work previously handled by Ms. Adler. He announced that Mr. Olson recently announced his
resignation to take a position as the County Engineer for Becker County. He stated the
reorganization has gone very well and staff will come back to Council at a later date to discuss
the merger of the Parks and Recreation Fund and the General Fund into one fund.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the Water Resources Manager
position and asked if this position will staff the Environment and Sustainability Commission.
Mr. Harmening explained that the Environment and Sustainability Commission will be housed
under the Operations and Recreation Department under Ms. Walsh’s purview and the Water
Resources Manager will work with the Environment and Sustainability Commission.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
Ms. Deno advised the City is in the process of recruiting a Fire Chief in light of Mr. Stemmer’s
upcoming retirement and the City has hired Brimeyer Fursman to assist in the search. She
indicated the City received approval from the Fire Civil Service Commission and the consultant
will begin the recruitment process and provide the City with the top candidates for interviews.
She stated the interview groups will include City staff, firefighters, Fire Civil Service
Commission members, and others with the top three finalists going through a second round of
interviews and Council will be invited to meet these finalists. She indicated the Fire Civil
Service Commission will certify the list for the City Manager in accordance with Civil Service
Rules and then make determination for hire. The Council needs to give consent to the
appointment. She added this process is expected to take approximately four months, and Mr.
Windschitl will be appointed interim Fire Chief.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the operational study and
whether further restructuring will be done as a result of that study.
Mr. Harmening stated the operational study consultants found that the operations of the Police
and Fire Departments were very good. He indicated the consultants felt the City could better
leverage its paid on call resources to supplement full time staff and there were some suggestions
made regarding the fire inspection program. He stated Mr. Stemmer has done an exceptional job
of rebuilding the City’s relationship with the union and upgrading the Fire Department’s
facilities and the new Fire Chief can focus on enhancing emergency operations, e.g., training and
preparedness, as well as the organizational structure of the command staff.
Ms. Deno stated that Ms. Schnitker has been asked by Mr. Locke to sit in on director meetings
and focus on administrative tasks so that Mr. Locke can continue his focus on SW LRT; in
addition, Mr. Walther is assisting Ms. McMonigal and Mr. Morrison. She added as the City goes
through 2014 budget planning, departments will be asked to provide further staffing information
for budget purposes.
Councilmember Mavity reminded staff that Council has made it clear that staff should ask for
additional resources if needed.
Ms. Deno advised that all five of the City’s union contracts are open for 2014 negotiation, which
will begin later this year. She reminded Council that the City Manager gives the charge to
negotiate based on budget constraints and urged Council to contact staff if they have any
questions and/or to direct resident questions to her or Mr. Harmening.
The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 6, 2013
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Director of Engineering (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Infrastructure Manager (Mr. Merkley),
Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek and Hennepin County Investigative Division
Major Carver.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Boards and Commissions Members
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to all of the
volunteers for their service on t he City’s Boards and Commissions. She recited the
Proclamation Honoring Boards and Commissions Volunteers and presented a Certificate
of Appreciation to outgoing Fire Civil Service Commissioner Marjorie Douville and to
outgoing Housing Authority Commissioner Renee DuFour. She also recognized
outgoing Boards and Commissions members Ryan Burt (Board of Zoning Appeals),
Kimberly Mayes (Police Advisory Commission), Nathan Prosser (Charter Commission),
Patrick Skinner (Charter Commission), Mary Tomback (Human Rights Commission),
Asa Goldstein (Police Advisory Commission), Emily Goldstein (Human Rights
Commission), and Duncan McIntyre (Police Advisory Commission).
2b. Sheriff’s Office Update
Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek stated the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office is a
multifaceted jurisdiction with eight lines of business including the jail, 911/dispatch,
patrol, crime lab, investigations, warrants, court security, and civil process. He reported
that violent crime in Hennepin County is down 37% over the last six years and during
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
2012, the St. Louis Park Police Department booked 270 arrestees into the jail. He briefly
discussed the Enforcement Services Division and Special Operations Division. He then
introduced Major Carver who oversees the Sheriff’s Office Investigative Division and
crime lab.
Major Carver stated the Investigations Bureau consists of the detective unit, criminal
information sharing and analysis unit (CISA), and violent offender task force (VOTF).
He stated the Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force is a multi-agency task force and
reported that during 2012, 100 firearms were confiscated, 161 arrests were made, and 112
State charges filed. He stated the Hennepin County crime lab is internationally
accredited and is one of two crime lab systems in the State processing DNA.
Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek stated the County conducts personnel training for a
number of people across the County and on June 11th, the County will be hosting a panel
including the Newtown, Connecticut, Chief of Police and representatives from Accent
Signage. H e presented a rendering of the County’s new state-of-the-art 911
communications facility in Plymouth. H e stated the 2012 annual report and 2013
strategic plan are available through the County and he expressed appreciation for the
strong partnership with the City.
Councilmember Mavity stated it was encouraging to see the reduction in violent crimes
but was disturbed about the recent increase in violence against women. She asked about
strategies to deal with this increase in domestic violence and asked what the community
can do together with the Sheriff to address this issue.
Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek stated the three young women currently missing in the
metro area is unprecedented. He indicated these types of crimes are hard to predict and
the Sheriff’s Office has good policies and protocols in place to enforce laws.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek for the update.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes April 1, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes April 8, 2013
Councilmember Hallfin requested that a paragraph be added to page 6 t hat states
“Councilmember Hallfin asked Mr. Fuhrmann about the engineering for both co-location
and relocation and asked if they were going to do the same job for both relocation and co-
location. Mr. Fuhrmann replied in the affirmative and stated they do not have any bias
one way or the other related to engineering for either option.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the twelfth paragraph on page 5 be revised by
adding a sentence that states “She asked if there were weights assigned to each of these
criteria. Mr. Fuhrmann replied there were not weights assigned to the criteria.”
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the seventh paragraph on page 6 be revised by
adding a sentence that states “She stated it was her understanding that Met Council staff
participated in Hennepin County’s DEIS process and analysis and now Hennepin County
staff are participating in the Met Council’s review of the options and she questioned
whether Met Council would truly be able to provide a fresh and independent analysis of
the options.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes April 15, 2013
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. Designate Black and Dew the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution
of a contract with the firm in the amount of $1,493,000 for the base bid and Bid
Alternates 1, 2, and 3 for a total contract amount of $1,620,100 for City Hall
Renovation Project No. 2900-1600.
4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2440-13 amending Chapter
8, Subdivisions IV – Food and Beverage, V – Public Sanitary Facilities, and VII –
Lodging and Chapter 12, Article 1 – Environmental and Public Health and
approve summary ordinance for publication on May 6, 2013.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 13-062 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from
Paul Weinreis through the United States Tennis Association (“USTA”) in the
amount of $600 to purchase equipment for the City’s youth tennis program.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 13-063 approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from
Walt Wayne for the purchase and installation of a m emorial bench at the
Westwood Hills Nature Center in memory of Sandra Kay Wayne.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 13-064 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$4,226.50 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 16
(Carpet and Resilient Flooring) for Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City
Contract No. 56-11.
4f. Approve temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the St. Louis Park
Sunrise Rotary, P.O. Box 16678, St. Louis Park, for an event to be held on May
16, 2013 at Excelsior & Grand Apartment Club Room, located at 3820 Grand Way
in St. Louis Park.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 13-065 accepting work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $14,225.33 for the 2012 B eltline Boulevard mill and overlay
project with Hardrives, Inc. – Project No. 2014-1102, Contract No. 137-12.
4h. Approve the 2013/2014 Neighborhood Grants.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 13-066 authorizing the elimination of the permit parking
restriction in front of 3112 Edgewood Avenue South.
4j. Approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $24,000 for Parcel 4 (7201
Lake Street – 7201 Lake Street LLC) and authorize the City Attorney to execute
stipulation of settlement.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
4k. Designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $129,114.95 for the 2013
MSA Street Rehab (Parkdale Drive) Project - Project #2013-1101.
4l. Adopt Resolution No. 13-067 accepting work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $22,445.44 for the 2012 MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue)
project with Bituminous Roadways, Inc. – Project No. 2011-1100, Contract No.
89-12.
4m. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 20, 2013.
4n. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes March 12,
2013.
4o. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes April 10,
2013.
4p. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, 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 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Ross absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District and
Related TIF Plan. Resolution No. 13-068.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report noting that the EDA took action on this item earlier in
the evening. He submitted a memo from Hennepin County to be included as part of the
official public record providing the County’s comments related to the establishment of
the Eliot Park TIF District. He stated the County memo summarized its findings related
to the TIF District and affirmed the City’s findings in the TIF Plan and the memo states
that “the TIF District satisfies the preference of the Commissioners of the use of tax
increment financing because it focuses on projects of renewal and greatest need”.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wade Hammer, 2201 Jersey Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
thanked Council for the opportunity to voice his concern about using tax dollars for this
project. He stated taxpayer money was used to study what residents wanted related to
redevelopment of this site and in development of the Design Guidelines. He stated the
majority of residents desired single family homes on this site and not high density, noting
that the concept of medium density housing was not discussed until the groups were
asked to consider something other than single family homes on the site. He felt the
statement that residents wanted medium density was disingenuous and the neighborhood
strongly desired single family. He stated the Design Guidelines were used to develop site
plans and were discussed during the public process and questioned why high density was
raised when the data points to the resident’s preference for single family homes and a
desire to avoid high density development. He asked how the property was listed and
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
whether it w as listed as potential single family. H e also asked if the site was
appropriately marketed to single family developers. He indicated the City heard from the
School District there was no interest in the site but there is no data showing the site was
offered for single family. He stated the PUD process has allowed decision-making to go
on outside of the public venue whereby there appear to be no clearly defined standards
that allow the public an opportunity to understand whether the plan is within or outside
City standards, adding residents cannot help but feel ignored when the study has been
ignored. He urged Council to vote against what is not ideal for this site. He stated the
citizens of St. Louis Park are now being asked to subsidize a private development and did
not agree with subsidizing another apartment complex in a single family neighborhood.
He stated there are a total of about 900 apartment units built or being built in the City and
every one of these flanks commercial properties. He referenced a School District study
that shows St. Louis Park enrollment near capacity and questioned where the children
will go to school once all the apartments are filled. He then asked if all apartment
buildings receive tax increment financing. He also asked who paid for the LBH study.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger replied that not all apartment buildings receive TIF assistance.
Mr. Hunt replied that the developer paid for the LHB study.
Mr. Jaime Calle, 2055 Kentucky Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
stated he feels betrayed by the City and does not understand why the City Council is
going ahead with this project after turning it down at an earlier meeting. He stated this
makes him think the City Council is getting a kickback or working for the developer
because the City Council is pushing this so hard and does not care about the neighbors.
He questioned what would happen when there is no longer a high demand for apartments.
He stated he came to this country seeking a better life and future for his children and
stated he was very disappointed in the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger responded to Mr. Calle’s statement regarding kickbacks and
stated nobody is getting kickbacks. She apologized that the process has not been clear to
him and explained that as part of general City Council procedures, any Councilmember
has the right to request reconsideration of an item and in this case, Councilmember Spano
requested the item be reconsidered and that request was honored.
Ms. Renee DuFour, 3924 Monterey Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated
when she served on the Housing Authority, this item was discussed and they invited the
developer to talk to the Housing Authority to learn about obstacles and to look for ways
to encourage development. She stated as a Housing Authority board member, she did not
understand the opposition of the neighborhood when the Housing Authority voted on this
and felt if they had had a better understanding of the objections of the neighborhood, they
would have wanted to ask more questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Hallfin indicated he has been opposed to this project from the beginning
and is a strong advocate for single family homes in the City but would not obstruct the
will of the City Council to let the TIF District go forward.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
Councilmember Santa stated it was her understanding the TIF District was not intended
as a subsidy for the developer and asked staff to explain how a TIF District operates.
Mr. Hunt indicated there appears to be a misperception about how tax increment works.
He explained that under tax increment financing the city captures the property taxes
resulting from the increased value of properties that have been redeveloped and provides
an agreed upon amount of those taxes back to the developer as reimbursement for certain
costs over a specific period of time. The developer is responsible for paying property
taxes on t he increased value of the property due to the new development. Thus the
assistance actually comes from the developments themselves when they are completed.
He stated the City requires pay-as-you-go instruments, which means only by way of the
developer paying their property taxes are tax increment payments made to the developer.
In this case, the first $1.1 million in tax increment gets paid to the redeveloper as
reimbursement for certain extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the site. Once
the obligations to the redeveloper have been satisfied, the district is terminated and the
property ultimately gets put back on to the tax rolls for the benefit of all other taxing
jurisdictions.
Councilmember Santa asked about the current value of the property and what it will be
after this development is constructed.
Mr. Hunt stated the base value for this property is approximately $2 million and when the
proposed project is completed the property will have an assessed market value of
approximately $17.7 million. He stated that the increase in value gets assessed to the
property and the developer is responsible for paying the property taxes which are then
used as tax increment payments back to the redeveloper for certain qualified costs under
the redevelopment contract.
Councilmember Santa pointed out that this building is an eyesore, nothing has happened
on the site for three years, the building has asbestos and lead paint, and needs to be
cleaned up and these represent extraordinary costs.
Councilmember Spano requested information regarding the six-year timeframe.
Mr. Hunt explained that the estimated annual tax increment for this project is
approximately $250,000. He stated the $1.1 million reimbursement to the developer will
be achieved in less than seven years. Then the TIF District would be terminated.
Mr. Bill Anderson, 2229 Kentucky Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
requested further information about why the City Council previously declined this project
and later reconsidered.
Councilmember Spano explained when the City Council first voted on this matter he
voted against moving the project forward and after that vote he found out that one piece
of information was inaccurate which impacted his earlier vote. He stated this information
had to do with the number of offers made on the property for single family homes and it
was learned there had been no offers for single family homes when he had previously
thought there had been offers made for single family homes which is why he made a
motion to reconsider the matter. He stated this property has been vacant for three years
and there have been no viable offers for construction of single family homes, adding the
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
building is falling down and the City has had issues with vandalism on the property
resulting in a safety issue. He added he was not happy with the Design Guideline process
but it was clear something needed to happen with this property and the Hunt Associates
offer was the only offer on the table after three years.
Mr. Harmening stated the City looked thoroughly at the site for possible construction of a
new fire station and the neighborhood made it clear that tearing down the school and
building a fire station was unacceptable, adding that was the last development proposal
for the site until Mr. Hunt approached the School District.
Mr. Hammer approached the City Council again and asked if the site was marketed to
single family developers or commercial developers.
Mr. Harmening stated the City was not involved in marketing the property and only
assisted in developing the future land use of the site.
Councilmember Mavity stated she understood the frustration of the neighbors and
acknowledged the concerns raised by the neighborhood but those concerns are not
something this body can act on or influence, such as the marketing of the property.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he approached the City to ask if the City could buy the
land and tear down the building in order to market the site for individual lots. He stated
the City ran some pro forma numbers and it was determined that it would cost at least
$500,000 to tear the building down and the lots would have to be sold for $100,000 per
lot which is not feasible. He added he was okay with taking a million dollar hit to put
single family homes on the site, but there was not buy-in from the rest of Council.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-068 Adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing
District Therein and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated her opposition to this project and the TIF District for the
reasons stated during the EDA meeting held earlier this evening. She stated she did not
agree with the proposed land use, she felt the density was too high, and she also did not
agree with the TIF financing. She also felt the price being paid for the parcel was too
high. She agreed with the earlier comments that the current building is unsafe and needs
to come down, but she would have been much happier if Council had pursued the topic of
fronting money to the School District to tear down the building and leaving the site as
open space until the right development proposal came along.
The motion passed 4-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opposed; Mayor Jacobs and
Councilmember Ross absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and advised the proposed ordinance recently updated
now requires all employees and volunteers to have a background check. Since working
with this change, we have run into difficulties with background checks now required on
one-time volunteers for events such as Beautify the Park or Parktacular parade pick up,
where backgrounds are not needed. She requested that Council approve a statement in
the proposed ordinance to give administrative authority to the City Manager to waive a
background check if it is deemed not necessary.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances Section 16-
33 Relating to Criminal Background Checks and to set Second Reading for May 20,
2013.
Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that people working with children or
vulnerable adults would be required to have a background check.
Ms. Deno replied that any safety sensitive area would require a background check.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Ross absent
8b. Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy. Resolution No. 13-069.
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and proposed policies with respect to healthy eating
and active living, adding that the Resolution establishes a broad policy for the City on a
number of topics as a statement of the City’s intent.
Councilmember Mavity expressed appreciation for the work done by residents and
Council on this policy. She requested that a paragraph be added to Section II (Natural
Environment) that states “Maintain and sustain the City’s parks and trails in recognition
of the positive benefits and acknowledgment of the City’s environmental stewardship.”
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-069 Approving a Healthy Eating and Active Living Policy, as
amended.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Ross absent).
8c. Conditional Use Permit – Educational Facility w/ Student Housing (3115
Ottawa Ave. South). Resolution No. 13-070.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow
student housing at Yeshiva of Minneapolis. He presented an aerial map of the property
and stated the proposal for student housing will not include any external improvements
and all work will be done within the existing building. He stated there was discussion at
the Planning Commission regarding the single family home located in the northeast
corner and the City’s requirement that buildings shall be located at least 50’ from a lot in
a residential district. He explained that a 2012 ALTA survey shows a total of two parcels
and City records show a special permit was approved in 1972 with the home noted on the
same parcel as the synagogue and used as a caretaker residence. He stated the City
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
proposes to rescind the 1972 permit and replace it with the CUP and carry forward the
previous condition that the home may be used as a caretaker residence. He presented the
landscape plan and stated the property will be brought into compliance with City Code by
planting additional trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot and
additional shrubs along Natchez. He then introduced Rabbi Shlomo Kutoff.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-070 rescinding Resolutions 6695 and 4747 and Granting Conditional
Use Permit for an Educational Facility with Student Housing for Property Located at
3115 Ottawa Avenue South.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Ross absent).
8d. Approval of 2013-2018 Solid Waste Collection Contracts
Resolution No. 13-071
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and proposed a five-year contract with Waste
Management for residential garbage and recycling services and proposed a five-year
contract with Advanced Disposal for residential yard waste and organic collection
services. He advised that the City will now be picking up more recyclable materials,
especially plastic, and collection will be more convenient for residents with a single sort
cart. He stated that optional organics recycling has been an added service and residents
will have the option to use a smaller cart size for trash collection. He stated that other
program changes include scrap metal recycling collection at the curb. He stated the
proposals from Waste Management and Advanced Disposal represented the lowest prices
and Council felt these collection options best suited the overall needs of residents. He
stated the total estimated cost of the garbage/recycling service collection contract is
$5,851,000 and the total estimated cost of the yard waste/organic waste service collection
contract is $3,331,000. He added once the contracts are approved, staff will begin an
educational/marketing process for residents regarding the new services which become
effective October 1, 2013.
Ms. Renee DuFour, 3924 Monterey Avenue, appeared before the City Council and
expressed concern regarding proper placement of carts and what the City allows. She
stated that residents living across the street from her in Edina are allowed to place their
carts in the street at the back of the curb but the City does not allow carts to be placed in
the street. She stated she is having trouble finding a place to put her garbage container
and would like to find a solution and requested further information from the City
regarding this issue.
Mr. Harmening stated the City determines the rules regarding proper placement of carts
and this is not a Waste Management issue and approving this contract has no bearing on
that issue. He advised the City does not want garbage carts placed on sidewalks because
it does not want to block the sidewalks and the City does not want carts in the street
because the carts can be an encumbrance to work being done in the street. He stated St.
Louis Park has a longstanding policy of having organized collection because it provides
residents with favorable rates and organized collection limits the number of garbage and
recycling vehicles on City streets, thus reducing wear and tear on C ity streets. H e
indicated he would be happy to meet with Ms. DuFour to discuss her concerns.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger suggested that Ms. DuFour continue to work with
Councilmember Mavity regarding her concerns.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding one of the terms of the
contracts that indicates the Contractor will provide walk-up service as an optional service
to residents.
Mr. Merkley stated the contract specifies that this is an additional service where the
hauler will provide walk-up service for garbage and recycling and the resident pays the
hauler for this service. He added this service is currently provided for approximately
$3.00 per month.
Councilmember Spano commended Mr. Rardin and his team for all their work on this
and stated the revamped recycling program is something the City should be proud of and
felt the new collection program was quite revolutionary.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-071 Designating Service Providers and Authorizing Contract.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Ross absent).
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked Mr. Rardin and Mr. Merkley and City staff for their
work on this matter. She stated that further information regarding these changes would
be forthcoming.
9. Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked all City staff and the residents who participated in the
tour of remodeled homes yesterday and especially thanked the six homeowners who
opened up their homes for the tour.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger reminded residents of the Children’s First ice cream social on
Sunday, May 19th, at Wolfe Park from 2:00-5:00 p.m.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson and
Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolutions to recognize Utilities
Superintendent Scott Anderson for his 31 years of service, and Fire Chief Luke Stemmer for his
36 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City
Council.
This consent item will officially adopt the resolutions that honor Scott and Luke for their years of
service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolutions
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson & Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT SCOTT ANDERSON
WHEREAS, Scott began his employment as a Laborer with the City of St. Louis Park over
31 years ago on May 17, 1982, was promoted to Water Treatment Operator, then through
personal effort and education was subsequently appointed Utility Superintendent in 1991; and
WHEREAS, Scott has worked to ensure clean and safe water for St. Louis Park residents
and implemented new systems, procedures, and equipment to reduce energy usage and improve
utility operations; and
WHEREAS, Scott oversaw the rehabilitation of all City water treatment plants, painting of
all water storage facilities, and expansion of electrical generation capacity so basic water and
sewer needs can be met during major power outages; and
WHEREAS, Scott liked to add humor and fun to work as evidenced by his developing and
implementing the “Grit Pit” and creating the “highly regarded and often referred to” backwater
valve video; and
WHEREAS, Scott served as the Chair of the Water For People organization from 1996 –
2006 where he raised thousands of dollars to fund sustainable drinking water across the globe
and traveled to Guatemala to visit water projects in development, and also served as Chair of the
Minnesota Section American Water Works Association (AWWA) during 2006 – 2007; and
WHEREAS, Scott is a tireless volunteer, attending two mission trips to Russia to deliver
humanitarian aid to orphanages, and traveling the state to give presentations on drinking water,
the environment, and healthy working relationships to school kids and utility operators; and
WHEREAS, Scott was honored with the Spirit of St. Louis Park Award in 1990, the Water
For People “Kenneth J. Miller Founders’ Award” in 2006, the “Leonard N. Thompson Award”
from the Minnesota Water Works Association in 2009, and the “George Warren Fuller Award”
from the American Water Works Association in 2011; and
WHEREAS, Scott will be remembered for his favorite accomplishment (a 1990 video
entitled “Quenching Your Thirst”), his wise, witty, and sometimes scatterbrained nature, his
ability to translate for engineers, for not viewing a glass half full or empty but overflowing, for
bringing joy to those around him, and for his motto “Life is Tremendous”; and
WHEREAS, Scott is planning numerous outdoor retirement activities with his wife Jo at
their new country home near Isle and thoroughly enjoying his precious granddaughter Sage;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Utilities
Superintendent Scott Anderson for his great contributions and 31 years of dedicated service to
the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson & Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson & Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO FIRE CHIEF LUKE STEMMER
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 36
years ago on August 16, 1976; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer has worked his way from Firefighter to Chief in St. Louis Park
by virtue of his exceptional leadership and technical skills in firefighting, emergency medical
services, fire prevention and emergency management, along with his outgoing personality and
genuine care and compassion for others; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer represents the City and has served in leadership positions on
many boards, committees, and agencies such as Children First, Former Chair of Minnesota
Emergency Management Association, Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association, Statewide
Mutual Aid Association, Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Code Committee Chair, Former Chair of
Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Association, Former Chair of Southwest Mutual Aid Association;
and member of Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers and International Association of
Fire Chiefs; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer will be missed throughout the county where he has been known
as the “Ghost,” for mysteriously showing up at fires in other cities; and
WHEREAS, City Manager Tom Harmening will not need to tell Chief Stemmer to stay off
the roof anymore; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer was named 2009 Fire Officer of the Year by the Minnesota
State Fire Chiefs Association for his integrity, loyalty and dedication to the fire service; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer has worked tirelessly to supervise construction of two new Fire
Stations with a special Fallen Firefighter Memorial; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer will spend his retirement years traveling with his wife Julie,
spending time with sons Luke, Seth, and Hunter, riding his Harley Davidson, and will finally
have time to unshelve and restore his 1963 Split-Window Corvette;
WHEREAS, Chief Stemmer is known to staff and the public for his kindness, sense of
humor, great listening skills, willingness to share his historical knowledge, patience,
trustworthiness, and kind hearted compassion that causes him to get emotional; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Fire Chief Luke
Stemmer for his great contributions and over 36 years of dedicated service to the City of St.
Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson & Fire Chief Luke Stemmer
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for St. Louis Park Public Schools
Foundation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor
license for the St. Louis Park Public Schools Foundation, P.O. Box 16367, St. Louis Park, for an
event to be held on October 5, 2013, at the Warehouse Winery located at 6415 Cambridge.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating
liquor license for the St. Louis Park Public Schools Foundation for their event to be held on
October 5, 2013?
SUMMARY: The St. Louis Park Public Schools Foundation has made an application for a
temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for their upcoming fundraiser dinner event to be
held on October 5, 2013 at the Warehouse Winery during the hours of 6 a.m. -10 p.m. The event
is being held to raise money for the Foundation’s two funds, one an endowment fund and the
other an operating fund, which support St. Louis Park public schools. The endowment fund
provides for long-term support, while the operating fund is used for annual grants and operating
expenses. The organization has conducted a yearly fundraising event in St. Louis Park with an
approved temporary liquor license since 2010.
City Ordinance 3-57(8) states that temporary liquor licenses may be issued to clubs, charitable,
religious or other nonprofit organizations in existence for at least three years. A temporary
liquor license approved by the City Council is not valid until it is approved by the Commissioner
of Public Safety.
The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the main principals and
has found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for
issuance of the license, and staff is recommending approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fee for a temporary liquor license is
$100.00 per day of the event.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Second Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance
amending the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances Chapter 16 relating to criminal history
background checks, and approve summary ordinance for publication on May 30, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to amend the City code regarding
criminal history background checks?
SUMMARY: A background check ordinance that was revised earlier this year requires all City
employees and volunteers to have a background check. It has come to our attention that this is a
significant change to our City’s volunteer program and could result in discouraging our residents
from participating in volunteer activities with the City.
There are a number of volunteer opportunities that do not deal in any safety sensitive area and
where a background check may be unnecessary. We coordinate hundreds of volunteers to pick
up litter in parks, roadways, trails and sidewalks in our City, and a number show up on the day of
the events. It appears administratively impractical and unnecessary to require backgrounds for
these types of volunteer activities, and in fact may discourage these organizations from
volunteering in our City.
The only change to this ordinance is underlined as follows: (b) Criminal History Employment
and Volunteer Background Investigations. The St. Louis Park Police Department is hereby
required, as the exclusive entity within the City, to do a criminal history background
investigation on the applicants for all part-time or full-time employment and volunteer positions.
This amendment had the following language removed, based on Council direction: with the City
unless the City Manager concludes that a background investigation is not necessary, such as in
one-time volunteer and election judge examples.
The first reading of this ordinance was approved on May 6, 2013 and it is recommended the
second reading be approved by consent on May 20, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Second Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
ORDINANCE NO. ____-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 16-33
RELATING TO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. That Section 16-33 (b) of the Code of Ordinances of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 16-33. Applicants for City Employment and Volunteer Positions.
(b) Criminal History Employment and Volunteer Background Investigations. The St.
Louis Park Police Department is hereby required, as the exclusive entity within the City, to do a
criminal history background investigation on the applicants for all part-time or full-time
employment and volunteer positions with the City, unless the City Manager concludes that a
background investigation is not necessary, such as in one-time volunteer and election judge
examples.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading May 6, 2013
Second Reading May 20, 2013
Date of Publication May 30, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect June 14, 2013
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Second Reading of Background Checks Ordinance Amendment
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 16-33
RELATING TO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
This ordinance amends the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to criminal history
background checks for City employment and volunteer positions. This ordinance shall take effect
15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
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 30, 2013
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution providing sale of $4,165,000
General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire to refund the 2007A Utility Revenue Bonds?
• Does the City Council desire to refund the 2008A Utility Revenue Bonds?
SUMMARY: Staff is recommending refunding of the 2007A Utility Revenue Bonds to take
advantage of lower interest rates. These Bonds were issued for the MSC construction. There is
$2,240,000 remaining on the Bonds. By refunding these bonds it is estimated that the City
would save approximately $160,000 in interest payments over the remaining life of the Bonds,
which will be paid off in 2023.
Staff is also recommending refunding of the 2008A Utility Revenue Bonds to take advantage of
lower interest rates. These Bonds were issued for the MSC construction. There is $1,925,000
remaining on the Bonds. By refunding these bonds it is estimated that the City would save
approximately $60,000 in interest payments over the remaining life of the Bonds, which will be
paid off in 2020.
Next Steps:
June 17th - City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds- Ehlers staff in attendance
July 10th - Proposed closing date of Bonds – No Council action required
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: By taking advantage of lower interest rates,
it is estimated that the City would save approximately $220,000 in interest costs over the
remaining life of the two Bonds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Pre-Sale Report from Ehlers & Associates
Resolution Providing for Sale of Bonds
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Prepared and Presented by:
Stacie Kvilvang, CIPFA
Senior Financial Advisor
And
Mark Ruff, CIPFA
Senior Financial Advisor
May 20, 2013
Pre-Sale Report for
$4,165,000 General Obligation Refunding
Bonds, Series 2013A
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A Page 2
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 20, 2013
Page 1
Executive Summary of Proposed Debt
Proposed Issue: $4,165,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A
Authority: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444
and 475 (general bond law). The Bonds will be general obligations of the
City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged.
Because the Bonds are paid 100% with utility revenues, there is no
requirement for a referendum nor do the Bonds count against the City’s debt
limit.
Purposes/Funding Sources:
The Bonds propose to crossover refund the City's outstanding General
Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A (callable on August 1,
2015) and General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A
(callable on August 1, 2016) for interest cost savings. Debt service will be
paid from utility funds and no change in term of the debt is proposed.
This refunding is considered an advance refunding. Only one advance
refunding of the old bonds is legally allowed during the life of the issue. In a
crossover refunding, the proceeds of the new bonds will be invested in either
government securities (SLGS) or open market securities and held in escrow.
The money in the escrow is used to pay interest on the new bonds until the
call date and then to prepay the old bonds at the first opportunity. The City
continues to make payments on the old bonds until the call date for each
bond. After the call date, the City begins making payments on the new bonds
in 2016 and 2017 respectively.
Interest rates on the existing 2007A Bonds are 4% and range from 3.25% to
4.25% on the 2008A Bonds. These Bonds are being combined into one
issue (with two purposes) and it is estimated that the new rates will average
approximately 1.5%. The refunding of the 2007A Bonds is expected to
reduce interest expense by approximately $20,000 per year for 8 years
beginning in 2016 and by approximately $15,000 per year for 4 years on the
2008A Bonds. The net present value benefit of the refunding of the two
Bonds combined is estimated to be approximately $200,000, equal to about
5% of the old bonds. The minimum savings required by Minnesota state law
for an advance refunding is a present value savings of 3%.
Term/Call Feature
The Bonds are being issued for a 10 year term. Principal on the Bonds will
be due on August 1 in the years 2016 through 2023. Interest is payable
every six months beginning February 1, 2014.
The Bonds maturing on August 1, 2021, and thereafter will be subject to
prepayment at the discretion of the City on August 1, 2020 or any date
thereafter.
Bank Qualification
Because the City is issuing no more than $10,000,000 in the calendar year,
the City will be able to designate the Bonds as “bank qualified” obligations.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A Page 3
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 20, 2013
Page 2
Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in
lower interest rates.
Rating:
The City’s most recent bond issues were rated AAA by Standard & Poor’s.
The City will request a new rating for the Bonds.
Method of Sale/Placement:
In order to obtain the lowest interest cost to the City, we will solicit
competitive bids for purchase of the Bonds from local banks in your area
and regional underwriters.
We have included an allowance for discount bidding equal to 1% of the
principal amount of the issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and
provides the underwriter with all or a portion of its compensation in the
transaction.
If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount
(maximum discount), the unused allowance may be used to lower your
borrowing amount.
Possible Premium Bid:
Because yields are very low at this time, a purchaser may choose to submit a
bid for your competitive sale with higher interest rates than the yield on the
bonds. Higher interest is valuable for institutional and retail investors who
may either trade bonds in the future or may want a higher yield if you as the
issuer choose not to call the bonds at the call date.
For example, the interest rate may be 3% but the yield may only be 1.5%.
To achieve the lower yield of 1.5%, the purchaser will pay you, the issuer, a
“premium” at the time of closing.
In other words, they will pay more than $5,000 for a $5,000 block of bonds
in exchange for more tax-exempt interest at a later date. The amount of the
premium varies, but can be as high as 10% of the bond issue. This means
for a $2,000,000 issue, you may end up with a bid that offers $2,200,000 in
proceeds.
The amount of the bond will be reduced if a premium bid is received. The
adjustment may slightly change the true interest cost of the original bid,
either up or down.
Review of Existing Debt:
We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that
there are no other refunding opportunities at this time.
We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City’s
outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities.
Continuing Disclosure:
Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including
this issue) and this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to
provide certain updated Annual Financial Information and its Audited
Financial Statement annually as well as providing notices of the occurrence
of certain “material events” to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the “MSRB”), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports
for its existing bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the
reports.
Arbitrage Monitoring: Because the Bonds are tax-exempt securities/tax credit securities, the Issuer
must ensure compliance with certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A Page 4
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 20, 2013
Page 3
throughout the life of the issue. These rules apply to all gross proceeds of
the issue, including initial bond proceeds and investment earnings in
construction, escrow, debt service, and any reserve funds. How issuers
spend bond proceeds and how they track interest earnings on funds
(arbitrage/yield restriction compliance) are common subjects of IRS
inquiries. Your specific responsibilities will be detailed in the Non-arbitrage
Certificate prepared by your bond attorney and provided at closing. In the
past, you have contracted with Ehlers to assist with arbitrage monitoring. We
recommend that you regularly monitor compliance with these rules and/or
retain the services of a qualified firm to assist you.
Risk Factors: The Bonds are being issued for the purpose of “advance” refunding prior
debt obligations. Only one advance refunding of an original tax-exempt
debt obligation is permitted under current IRS rules. This refunding is being
undertaken based in part on the assumptions:
• Since the new Bonds will extend the “call” date for this debt,
we are assuming that the City does not expect to have revenues
available to pre-pay the current obligations prior to this new
call date.
• That advance refunding will provide an overall lower debt cost
as compared to waiting to refund the issue until its call date.
Summary: The decisions to be made by the Council are as follows:
• Accept or modify the financing assumptions described in this
report.
• Adopt the resolution attached to this report.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A Page 5
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
May 20, 2013
Page 4
Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule
Pre-Sale Review by Council: May 20, 2013
Distribute Official Statement: Week of June 3, 2013
Conference with Rating Agency: Week of June 10, 2013
City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: June 17, 2013
Estimated Closing Date: July 10, 2013
Attachments
Sources and Uses of Funds
Proposed Debt Service Schedule
Refunding Savings Analysis
Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed With Bond Sale
Ehlers Contacts:
Financial Advisors: Stacie Kvilvang
Mark Ruff
(651) 697-8506
(651) 697-8505
Bond Analyst:
Jennifer Chapman
(651) 697-8566
Bond Sale Coordinator:
Financial Analyst:
Alicia Baldwin
Alicia Gage
(651) 697-8523
(651) 697-8551
The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the City Council at their home address or e-mailed for
review prior to the sale date.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 13-_____
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF
$4,165,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS,
SERIES 2013A
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has heretofore
determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $4,165,000 General Obligation
Refunding Bonds, Series 2013A (the "Bonds"), to crossover refund the City's outstanding
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A and 2008A for interest cost savings;
and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota
("Ehlers"), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit
proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for
the sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on June 17, 2013, for
the purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are
hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official
statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its
completion.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Authorize Pre-sale of Bond Refunding 2007A & 2008A Page 7
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Monetary Donation from the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund in the amount of $5,000 to
use toward the purchase of a robot for the Police Department.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to accept the gift with restrictions
on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to ensure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use
of each donation prior to it being expended.
The St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund is donating $5,000 for the purchase of a robot for the
Police Department. These funds originated through a donor and were deposited to the Crime
Fund, which is a 501c3 and thus an eligible expense for the donor, which then can be passed onto
the city and deposited into the Capital Replacement Fund for this eligible expenditure. The robot
will enable Police Department personnel to investigate potentially dangerous indoor and outdoor
environments by obtaining real-time video that is transmitted back to a handheld control unit.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will assist with the purchase
of equipment that would otherwise have required additional resources from the Capital
Replacement Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Monetary Donation from the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CRIME PREVENTION FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000
TO PURCHASE A ROBOT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund is donating $5,000 to purchase a
robot for the Police Department to aid in investigating potentially dangerous situations; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund
with the understanding that it must be used to purchase a robot for the Police Department.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of CenterPoint Energy Grant
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Accept Grant from CenterPoint Energy in the
amount of $2,500 for a civil defense outdoor warning siren.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept this grant?
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.
CenterPoint Energy is graciously awarding a grant to the Fire Department an amount of
$2,500.00 for the purchase of a civil defense outdoor warning siren.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This grant will be used for the purchase of
a civil defense outdoor warning siren
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by & Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of CenterPoint Energy Grant
RESOLUTION NO. 13-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FROM CENTERPOINT
ENERGY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 FOR USE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF A CIVIL DEFENSE OUTDOOR WARNING SIREN
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 grant by the
grantor; and
WHEREAS, the donation of $2,500 from CenterPoint Energy will be directed toward the
purchase of a civil defense outdoor warning siren;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the grant is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting a donation to the Fire
Department.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept this donation with the
restriction that it must be used to restore and maintain the antique fire engine?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
William J. Spencer is graciously donating to the Fire Department an amount of $50.00 in thanks
for services the Fire Department provides.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will assist us in restoring and
maintaining the antique fire engine.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared & Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer , Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department
RESOLUTION NO. 13-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM WILLIAM J. SPENCER IN THE AMOUNT OF $50
FOR USE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR RESTORATION OF THE 1928
AMERICAN LAFRANCE FIRE TRUCK
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the donation of $50 from William J. Spencer will be directed toward the
restoration of the Fire Department’s 1928 American LaFrance Fire Truck;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the donation is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of a Memorial Tree in Memory of Patrick J. McCashin
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $300
donation from the family of Patrick J. McCashin for the purchase and installation of a Sugar
Maple tree at the Dakota Park Dog Park in memory of Patrick J. McCashin.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions
on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
The family of Patrick J. McCashin is graciously donating an amount of $300 to honor Patrick J.
McCashin. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used to purchase and install a
Sugar Maple tree at the Dakota Park Dog Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to purchase and
install a memorial tree at the Dakota Park Dog Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of a Memorial Tree in Memory of Patrick J. McCashin
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN MEMORY OF PATRICK J. MCCASHIN
IN THE AMOUNT OF $300 FOR THE PURCHASE
AND INSTALLATION OF A SUGAR MAPLE TREE
AT THE DAKOTA PARK DOG PARK
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the family of Patrick J. McCashin desires to purchase a memorial tree for
Patrick J. McCashin to be installed at the Dakota Park Dog Park with a donation of $300; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the family of Patrick J. McCashin with the
understanding that it must be used to purchase and install a memorial Sugar Maple tree for
Patrick J. McCashin at the Dakota Park Dog Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 30, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from the 2013 Friends of the Park Tree Sale
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from the 2013 Friends of the Park tree sale in the amount of $75 for the
purchase of trees for the parks.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions
on its use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
The 2013 Friends of the Park tree sale received $75 in donations to purchase trees for the parks
in the City. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used to purchase and install trees
in City parks.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to purchase and
install trees in City parks.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation from the 2013 Friends of the Park Tree Sale
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $75 TO BE USED TO PURCHASE
AND INSTALL TREES IN CITY PARKS
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the Friends of Park tree sale acquired a donation of $75 to purchase and
install trees in City parks; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Friends of the Park with the understanding
that it must be used to purchase and install trees in City parks.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolution Authorizing Application for Southwest LRT Station Area Zoning Study
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution identifying the need for Livable
Communities Transit Oriented Development funding and authorizing an application for grant
funds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support the submission of an application to
the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act-Transit Oriented Development (LCA-TOD)
program for grant funds to explore and develop a form-based code, or other zoning tool, in the
Beltline, Wooddale and Louisiana Station Areas?
SUMMARY: The Metropolitan Council has made available funding for pre-development
projects in Metropolitan Council identified Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas. This
funding can be used for a variety of activities including design workshops, architectural work for
site plans, stormwater management plans or the creation of TOD implementation zoning tools.
Grant awards require a match of 25% of requested funds, with a maximum award amount of
$100,000. The City has requested the full $100,000, which would require a maximum cash
match of $25,000. The City has stated that the $25,000 may consist of cash and in-kind sources.
The City has undertaken a number of studies and planning efforts for Southwest LRT station
areas and has developed design guidelines, circulation plans, and visions for these areas. We
would like to further develop land use controls or zoning tools to assist the City in fully realizing
these visions and plans.
The principal activities of the LCA-TOD grant include: background research on our current
zoning code and plans, guidelines, or other documents associated with the three Southwest LRT
station areas; the exploration of form-based codes and other potential zoning tools for use in St.
Louis Park; the development of the tool or an ordinance that the City determines will most
efficiently and predictably allow and encourage each station area’s envisioned character.
A resolution authorizing the grant application is attached. The resolution has been written to
reflect the specific language required by the Metropolitan Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Resolution Authorizing Application for Southwest LRT Station Area Zoning Study
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR
SOUTHWEST LRT STATION AREA ZONING STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act (“LCA”) Local Housing Incentives Program for 2012 as determined by the
Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for LCA Livable Communities
Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account Transit Oriented Development
(collectively, “TOD”) funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed TOD Project within the City that meets
TOD purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s adopted
metropolitan development guide; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
adequately manage an LCA TOD grant; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges TOD grants are intended to fund TOD Projects or
TOD Project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for TOD
development or redevelopment elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the
proposed TOD Project or key components of the proposed TOD Project can be replicated in
other metropolitan-area communities; and
WHEREAS, only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the
Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities TOD initiative during each funding cycle and the
Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only
to eligible TOD Projects that would not occur without the availabilit y of TOD grant funding.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due
consideration, the governing body of the City:
1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City’s development goals and priorities
for the proposed TOD Project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time.
2. Finds that the TOD Project component(s) for which Livable Communities TOD
funding is sought:
(a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future; and
(b) will occur within the term of the grant award (two years for Pre-
Development grants, and three years for Development grants, one year for Cleanup
Site Investigation grants and three years for Cleanup grants) only if Livable
Communities TOD funding is made available for this TOD Project at this time.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Resolution Authorizing Application for Southwest LRT Station Area Zoning Study
3. Authorizes its City Staff to submit on behalf of the City an application for
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities TOD grant funds for the TOD Project
component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be
necessary to implement the TOD Project on behalf of the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4k
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: The Towers at West End Final Plat & Final Planned Unit Development Time Extensions
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve an extension until May 31, 2014 for Duke
Realty to file the final plat and final planned unit development (PUD) applications for The
Towers at West End.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City allow Duke Realty additional time to file
applications for final plat and final PUD approval for The Towers at West End?
SUMMARY: Under the zoning code, Duke Realty is required to submit an application for final
plat and final PUD within 90 days of City Council preliminary plat and preliminary PUD
approvals. The 90-day deadline originally was set to expire on May 31, 2009. On April 20,
2009, May 3, 2010, May 16, 2011, and May 21, 2012, the City Council approved one year
extensions to the deadline. The City received a written request from Duke Realty for another
extension.
As indicated in the attached letter from Duke Realty, market conditions have made it difficult to
proceed with an office project at this time. Staff concurs with this determination and
recommends approval of the extension.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Duke Realty Request for Extension
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Title: Towers at West End Final Plat & Final Planned Unit Development Time Extensions
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Appointment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution appointing Perry Edman as a
member to the Technical Advisory Committee for the Basset Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Each member city is entitled to appoint one member to the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the BCWMC. Does Council wish to appoint Mr.
Edman, Water Resources Manager for the City of St. Louis Park, as recommended?
BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park is partially located in the Bassett Creek
Watershed. The BCWMC was established by a Joint Powers Agreement authorized under
Minnesota State Statues to oversee and coordinate the management of surface water between the
nine member cities, which include Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, Minneapolis,
Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park.
Perry Edman was recently hired as the Water Resources Manager for the City of St. Louis Park.
If appointed, he will be replacing Laura Adler, former city employee who served as the city staff
TAC member on the BCWMC. TAC members serve as long as they are employed by the cities
they represent. The TAC members participate and provide input on issues before the
Commission, but do not have voting privileges.
The Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission requires committee appointments to be
approved by Resolution.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Each member city is required to contribute
each year to the BCWMC general fund. The City’s assessment of costs associated with the
BCWMC fiscal year 2012 was $17,303. The fiscal year 2013 assessment of costs was $19,420.
VISION CONSIDERATION: The mission of the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission is to control flooding and to maintain and enhance the quality of the surface and
ground water resources in the watershed. The BCWMC’s mission complements the St. Louis
Park Strategic Directions regarding educating staff and public on environmental consciousness,
stewardship and best practices.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Assistant - City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening ,City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Title: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Appointment
RESOLUTION NO. 13-________
RESOLUTION APPOINTING PERRY EDMAN,
MEMBER TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF
THE BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is partially located in the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission area and is required under state law to manage its storm
water runoff; and
WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission has been organized
under Minnesota State Statutes to manage the storm waters of cities whose boundaries fall within
the water management area; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has adopted a Joint Powers Agreement joining
the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, that the City of St.
Louis Park appoints Perry Edman as technical advisor member to the Technical Advisor
Committee of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall, within 30 days of its
adoption, file a certified copy of this resolution with the Secretary of the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 6, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4m
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2012
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on October 25, 2012, at St.
Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council
Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: Paul Roberts
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Solmer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of September 27, 2012.
The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side yard setback
Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South
Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman
Case No.: 12-25-VAR
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He said a
survey was submitted after agenda materials were provided to the board that illustrates
what an addition would look like if it met a 3 foot setback. Mr. Morrison said the staff
recommendation at the September 27, 2012 meeting was for denial to maintain a 10 inch
setback with a larger addition. He said if the applicant agreed to go ahead with a 3 foot
setback, staff would recommend approval of that request based on the findings which he
reviewed.
Commissioner Bloyer asked if there was a concern that the 3 foot variance would set a
precedent.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 2
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
Mr. Morrison responded that each application is reviewed on the merits presented for that
specific application.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Henry Stokman, applicant, showed the revised floor plan to the board. He said the actual
garage space is only 10 feet in diameter and losing 3 feet is quite substantial. Mr.
Stokman said he understands that economic hardship isn’t enough for a variance, but felt
from an investment standpoint in time, money, livability, and usefulness; it makes it
difficult to move forward with that plan. Mr. Stokman asked if the board would consider
meeting in the middle with a 2 foot setback from the property line. He said in their
situation, and based on the current proximity of their garage in relation to the property
line, they feel like they are stuck.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if the applicant would not proceed with a 3 foot setback.
Mr. Stokman responded that he didn’t think they would go ahead with a 3 foot setback.
Vice Chair Solmer said he believed it was the consensus at the September 27th meeting
that the board was meeting the applicant in the middle by proposing a 3 foot setback.
Mr. Stokman said he agreed, but felt most of the properties in St. Louis Park were non-
conforming and most of the variances granted are at 3 feet. He said after redrawing the
plans and looking at the size of the rooms, he said it doesn’t make sense to do it with a 3
ft. setback.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair made a motion to deny a 4.1 foot variance to the required 5.0 foot side yard
for the construction of a house addition. The motion passed on a vote 2-1 (Bloyer no).
Mr. Morrison read the appeal statement. The appeal period expires on November 5, 2012.
B. Variance: Front yard setback
Location: 2937 Ensign Avenue South
Applicant: Ensign, LLC
Case No. 12-27-VAR
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He said that
at the September 27th meeting, the board requested that the applicant submit drawings
showing how the lot would fit in with the other homes on the block at the various
setbacks which were discussed. Mr. Morrison presented drawings. He remarked that the
situation which occurs with houses facing each other is fairly typical of a cul-de-sac.
Staff does not see that as a hardship or a practical difficulty. He said the house meets all
the zoning setbacks and staff does not see a hardship for any type of variance in any way.
It seems to be aesthetics that come into play.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 3
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
Mr. Morrison said, as pointed out at the September meeting, the requirement for the front
setback is 30 feet or the distance from the property line to the front most wall of the
house on that block, whichever is greater.
Mr. Morrison said staff continues to recommend denial of the variance request.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Curt Fretham, Ensign, LLC, applicant, said the drawings also include the distance from
the curb to the front of the homes. He said there are several other compensating factors
aside from aesthetics that are worth noting. He said as one looks north on Ensign there is
a nice alignment of the houses. He said as it is a new development why not set it up from
a planning perspective the best that they can. He would like to create some consistency
and a nice streetscape. Mr. Fretham stated that the 50 plus feet from the curb is a big
number and not often seen in the general neighborhood. Mr. Fretham discussed the
discrepancy of 4.88 feet discovered when recording the final plat. This discrepancy
pushed the house further east. He remarked there are a number of circumstances that
deserve consideration.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if the 4.88 ft. discrepancy required any of the other houses to be
pushed back.
Mr. Fretham responded that it required all of the houses to be pushed back.
Vice Chair Solmer asked if they all still meet the setback requirement.
Mr. Fretham responded that they do meet the setback requirement. He added that the
houses are all pushed back further behind the existing house.
Vice Chair Solmer discussed the area in front of the garage. He said there would be a
large area of pavement right up to the front of the property line. He said he was trying to
understand how it was going to look from the street.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley said he was concerned since this does not go along with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Bloyer said she agreed with his concern.
Commissioner Gainsley said the proposal is a very detailed projection, a very intricate
way of doing things. It doesn’t meet the design of the Comprehensive Plan and there is
no hardship.
Commissioner Bloyer stated the board is constrained by state law. The lot does not
present a hardship. She said she had to retract her earlier thoughts about it from the
previous meeting on that basis. She said the board has to go by the shape and
circumstances of the lot, and there isn’t a constraint in this case. She said if anything, the
nearby lots might be constraining Lot 1.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 4
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
Vice Chair Solmer made a motion to deny a 10 foot variance to the required 30 foot front
yard for the construction of a new house. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0.
Mr. Morrison read the appeal statement. The appeal period expires on November 5, 2012.
C. Appeal of a Zoning Determination
Location: 4215 Cedarwood Road
Applicant: Peter Hagen
Case No.: 12-23-AP
Continued from September 27, 2012
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated the
appellant is Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road. He said that Mr. Hagen is appealing
the following four staff determinations: 1) windows in tree house facing the neighboring
property are not located in the second story; 2) the tree house is not taller than the house;
3) the deck on the tree house conforms to setback requirements; and 4) the tree house is
not built in a utility easement. Mr. Morrison said that staff has determined that the appeal
to items 1 and 2 is not timely. He reviewed the timeline. Regarding item 3, Mr. Morrison
said staff determined the decks are a component of the accessory building, and therefore
subject to accessory setbacks of 2 ft. to the rear property line and 2 ft. to the side property
line, and do meet code. Regarding item 4, he said staff does not believe a utility easement
exists on the property. He reviewed the appellant’s exhibits and staff’s research regarding
this item.
Vice Chair Solmer reopened the public hearing.
Peter Hagen, 4221 Cedarwood Road, reviewed his communications and correspondence
regarding the appeal.
Mr. Hagen asked his attorney to present his credentials and speak to the timeliness issue.
Richard Gabriel, attorney, reviewed his credentials. He said in Mr. Hagen’s discussions
with Mr. Morrison, he did not realize that any final determination had been made. Mr.
Gabriel said his client is referencing a number of decisions, discussions, and a permit
being granted on September 21st. He said staff had not made a determination on the
utility easement until more recently and his client was timely on that issue. He said he
would discuss the legal difference between an easement and a covenant.
Mr. Hagen stated that staff had not provided the board with a July 17th letter from Mr.
Gabriel to Tom Harmening, City Manager. Mr. Hagen said he felt he had been denied
due process in his appeal as no one he contacted at the city informed him about the
appeal process.
Vice Chair Solmer asked Mr. Hagen to give his complete presentation.
Mr. Hagen spoke about the permit. He said a permit was not applied for until September,
and that occurred only after he had requested a copy of the permit a number of times.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 5
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
In regard to the height violation, Mr. Hagen read from the zoning code saying that the
height of all accessory buildings and structures shall be lower than the highest roof line of
the principal building. He said the tree house is 4-5 ft. higher than the highest point of the
principal building. He distributed a photograph of the subject roof line and accessory
building. He discussed a diagram of a play structure, showing how a play structure should
be measured. He remarked that Mr. Morrison measured it from the highest grade to the
highest point of the structure rather than from the lowest exterior grade at the base of the
structure to the highest point of the structure. Mr. Hagen submitted a photograph of the
base of the structure. Mr. Hagen distributed Mr. Morrison’s response on the
measurements. He said he didn’t trust that Mr. Morrison had accurately measured the
height of the home. Mr. Hagen distributed a letter from Austin Cargill, the neighbor
directly behind 4215 Cedarwood, regarding the height issue.
Mr. Gabriel said the relative ordinance does not refer to measuring height and feet, but
rather discusses the roof line being higher. He said the construction that Mr. Morrison has
placed on the ordinance is not consistent with the language of that ordinance.
Mr. Hagen read from the ordinance saying that windows, doors and similar openings may
be located in the second story of an accessory building if the wall or dormer in which it is
located faces a lot line that abuts a public right-of-way or at least 15 ft. from any property
zoned residential. He said the argument the city has made is that because the building is
elevated 8 ft. into the air that the first story starts at 8 ft. He said he believed the intent of
the ordinance is to prevent windows from looking down on other’s property to protect
privacy.
Mr. Hagen said the setbacks for patios and decks are very clear. He said setbacks exist
for decks, patios and uncovered porches and stoops that do not extend above the height of
the ground floor of the level of the home. He went on to say that all others must meet
setback requirements for the house itself.
Mr. Hagen spoke about the reduction in value of his property because of the structure.
He discussed an appraisal letter from Robert Lear stating that the structure is a huge
negative for Mr. Hagen’s property. He discussed a letter from Edina Realty stating that
the structure reduces the value of Mr. Hagen’s property. He stated that the whole reason
the ordinance and code was created and exists is to help protect the value of homes and
the neighborhoods.
Mr. Hagen discussed loss of privacy. He said Mr. Cargill’s privacy has been violated as
well.
Mr. Hagen said that Xcel Energy furnished him with a Certificate of Title with the utility
easement. He said Xcel Energy considers it a permanent easement granted to them. He
said there is a perpetual easement of 5 feet. He said the covenants that were released in
1975 did not release the easement. He said the ordinance states that the city cannot allow
any structure to be built in an easement without an encroachment agreement. He said
Xcel Energy recently measured to determine if it violates the National Electric Safety
Code and found that it does not meet the requirements.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 6
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
Mr. Gabriel reviewed his October 25, 2012 letter which was distributed to the board. He
said he was concerned about due process regarding the notice provision. He said he was
puzzled by zoning code language which doesn’t provide for notice of appeal rights when
there is a final determination.
Mr. Gabriel said easements are recognized as a particular type of property right. He said
it is an interest in property giving the rights to use of that property by someone other than
the property owner. He said a covenant is a restriction on the use of property. He said
historically covenants have been addressed by the state legislature. He said there is a 30
year limit on covenants unless there are certain exceptions like townhomes or
condominiums. Covenants expire automatically upon 30 years or when they become
nominal. Mr. Gabriel said easements do not expire that way. He said in this particular
case it is a perpetual utility easement over the last 5 feet of the property. He said it is his
opinion that the easement did not expire and the covenants did expire after 25 years. He
said the ordinance states that an accessory building cannot be constructed in the easement
area. Mr. Gabriel said the structure is in violation of the city ordinance.
Mr. Gabriel spoke about right of appeal, City Code Section 36-31(a) from page 2 of the
September 27th staff report. He said it says at any time within 20 days after a permit a
notice of appeal can be made.
Daniel Rosen, attorney, representing Kenneth and Nicole Fink, 4215 Cedarwood Road,
stated his clients brought a lawyer to the meeting not because they believe the city or staff
has done anything wrong. He said staff has been nothing but courteous and cooperative
throughout. He said with this neighbor there has been a decade of a relationship and
history that tells his clients that under certain circumstances they need to engage certain
levels of protection. He said it is a history of bullying behavior. Mr. Rosen said Mr. Fink
was prepared to answer any questions. He stated that two neighbors, Dr. Mark
Rosenblom and Pete Denkworth, were also present to answer any questions.
Mr. Rosen stated that the very first communication on the subject came from Nicole
Benjamin Fink to the city inquiring if permits are required for tree houses. She was
informed that tree houses are not covered by the city ordinances so the structure can be
built without a permit. A complaint was registered after the construction. City staff came
out and said, perhaps because of the sophistication of the structure, if it is covered under
the ordinance as an accessory structure then there are setback issues. Staff measured and
did all the things they needed to do in order to respond to the complaint. Mr. Rosen said
the Finks didn’t argue or complain about whether or not a tree house is covered and they
ought to comply. He said they made modifications costing $1,300.00 to comply with a 2
ft. setback that applies, if tree houses are even covered by ordinance. Mr. Rosen said at
no time did the Finks do anything other than what city staff asked of them. Mr. Rosen
stated they now ask the city and the board to enforce the rule on appeal deadline. He said
it is particularly important in neighbor relationships like this that the rules are not vague
and fuzzy. Mr. Rosen remarked that substantively the matters discussed by the neighbor
regarding the timeliness are wrong. He added that quotations from the ordinance
regarding height which the neighbor brought forward are incorrect. Mr. Rosen said the
Finks have complied, they have been cooperative, and they’ve gone to tremendous
expense to meet the complaints of the neighbor.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 7
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
Vice Chair Solmer asked Mr. Rosen to go through the issues point by point.
Mr. Rosen stated in regard to height in the ordinance, height is distance from a base to a
top. At no time does it reference elevation, but references height.
Mr. Rosen said they don’t have anything to add to the staff report regarding windows or
decks.
As regards to the easement, Mr. Rosen said they agree with everything in the staff report.
He said the appellant stated that Xcel Energy was recently on the property. Mr. Rosen
said that was as recent as one or two days ago. He added that Xcel Energy has repeatedly
and at every single occasion in response to the complaint responded that there is nothing
about the tree house that causes Xcel Energy any difficulty. Xcel has stated that this
sounds like an extension of a dispute between neighbors and they are not going to be
involved.
Mr. Rosen said, as pointed out in the staff report, there is no public easement. He said to
the extent there may be private easement rights relating to Xcel, he knows of none that
have ever been asserted by Xcel in connection with this type of building.
Vice Chair Solmer confirmed with Mr. Morrison that there is no public easement. Vice
Chair Solmer stated that the easement, if any, is private and is not in BOZA’s or the
City’s duty to enforce it.
Mr. Hagen said the title, which has been provided to the board, specifically states that it
is a public utility easement not only for Xcel but also for the cable company and
telephone company.
Mr. Gabriel stated that is referenced in materials that have been provided to the board. It
refers to a public utility easement. He stated that the ordinance references utility
easements so this is clearly within the realm of the ordinance and within the definition of
this easement.
Mr. Rosen stated that power companies are private companies but for certain regulatory
purposes are referred to as public utilities. The fact that they are public utilities does not
mean that the easement is a public easement.
Vice Chair Solmer asked Mr. Fink if he could discuss the time period that occurred
between the construction of the structure and the granting of the permit.
Kenneth Fink, 4215 Cedarwood Road, stated that his wife wanted to give him a 50th
birthday present and she hired a contractor and constructed the tree house without his
knowledge. His wife and the contractor contacted the city sometime in April asking if a
permit was required. They were told a permit was not required. The structure was built in
April. After Mr. Hagen filed his complaints Mr. Morrison came out and sometime in May
requested a permit. Mr. Fink said he understood the permit was an incidental request.
His understanding was it wasn’t critical because it wasn’t clear that the tree house falls
under the ordinance. It took several months because he didn’t think it was a big deal and
forgot about it. The tree house was already built at that point and they had already made
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4m) Page 8
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of October 25, 2012
the modifications requested and spent another $1,300. Sometime during the summer Mr.
Fink said they submitted a drawing.
Mr. Hagen said he was not the homeowner who originally reported the tree house to be in
violation of the setback. He was told by Mr. Morrison that information was confidential.
Vice Chair Solmer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley said he agreed with the staff determination.
Vice Chair Solmer stated he also agreed with the staff determination. He said if Xcel does
find a violation they can certainly require a modification as needed.
Commissioner Bloyer said there is a defined means of appeal. She said she agrees with
the staff determination on the other items.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to deny the appeal based on staff findings. The
motion to deny the appeal passed on a vote of 3-0.
Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to City Council. The appeal period
would expire November 5, 2012.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. COMMUNICATIONS: None
8. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4n
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
February 20, 2013, 6:30 p.m. Meeting
Rec Center Programming Office
1. Call to Order
Mr. Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members present: Jim Beneke, Sophia Flumerfelt
(left at 6:50 p.m.), Sarah Foulkes, George Hagemann, Kirk Hawkinson, and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: George Foulkes and Elizabeth Griffin
Staff present: Rick Beane, Parks Superintendent, Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent, Jason
Eisold, The Rec Center Manager, Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, Cindy Walsh,
Director of Parks and Recreation, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary.
2. Presentation: Historical Society (Tom Olson)
Tom Olson, President of the Historical Society, along with the Commission, provided
introductions. Mr. Olson thanked them for the invitation.
Mr. Olson indicated the Historical Society is planning for a new facility for historic preservation.
A Minnesota Legacy Grant was been received to assess their collection in January. The
organization is waiting for a report from the Minnesota Legacy Grant regarding items at The
Depot and Lenox Community Center. The society is working with the City in an attempt to hire a
consultant to develop a building. The Historical Society continues to have office hours at Lenox
Community Center for a couple hours per day. The Depot will be open Saturdays in summer;
visit their website, slphistory.org, for more information.
A quarterly newsletter, the Re-Echo, is created and distributed. Jeanne Anderson updates the
website and is writing an article in the St. Louis Park magazine “Last Glance”, which includes
historical discussions. They will continue to be in the Parktacular parade. Also, they receive
numerous requests annually from 7th graders for their history projects. They support the requests.
Mr. Worthington inquired how many members are in the Historical Society. According to Mr.
Olson, approximately 100 to 120 members pay dues annually.
Mr. Worthington asked if the grant review will provide what size of space is needed for the
Society. Mr. Olson advised it will provide that information plus what types of elements are
needed to preserve the artifacts.
Members inquired where the new building would be located to which Mr. Birno indicated the
proposal is to have it at Jorvig Park along with the Depot. This would create a “St. Louis Park
History Center aspect which could include tours of the buildings. The vision is to have a history
building to hold collections, a display area, and a sidewalk to the Depot for tours. Council
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4n) Page 2
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2013
approved review of area at this time. Members discussed option to include in potential
community center but feel it would be better suited by Depot. It would create a history area for
visits by school groups, etc.
Mr. Olson indicated the Historical Society is an all-volunteer organization with no paid staff.
Other historical societies in various cities have paid staff or receive subsidies from cities. Mr.
Birno recommended members to view the Historical Society’s website as it is a wealth of
information. Their website is now with the City so it is secured and protected. Are material being
scanned, Mr. Worthington inquired? They are continually scanning and adding information to the
website indicated Mr. Olson. Commission and staff members complimented the Historical
Society on all their work, including the efforts being put forth on the website. Mr. Worthington
suggested a historical addition to the Park Perspective would be beneficial. Mr. Birno advised of
the Historical Society’s publication and will ensure Commission members are on the mailing list.
Mr. Worthington asked Mr. Olson what else the City can do to assist the Society. Mr. Olson
indicated their challenge is storage. Mr. Birno advised another challenge is the time the Society is
open as the School District has policies for being open on weekends which is the time volunteers
can assist.
Members thanked Mr. Olson for volunteering and Mr. Olson thanked Commission.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. December 5, 2012
It was moved by Commission member Worthington to approve the minutes. Motion
passed 5 – 0.
4. New Business
a. Minnehaha Creek Clean-up for 2013 (Jim Vaughan)
Mr. Vaughan informed the Commission the annual Minnehaha Creek clean-up will be
held from 9 a.m. – 11 a.m. on Saturday, April 27 by Brehmer Bank. If there is a
downpour of rain or if it’s snowing, the clean-up will be held the following day. Member
will have assigned areas to lead groups as in the past.
Mr. Hagemann indicated last year additional people attended from the social site Meetup.
There was a good turnout of helpers.
b. Minnehaha Creek Remeandering Update (Jim Vaughan)
Mr. Vaughan distributed the creek restoration plan and provided a current update on the
water diversion and construction which is on schedule. The next phase is landscaping
which will occur when frost is out of the ground. The trail is scheduled to be constructed
June and July. Staff and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will walk it together and
mark where it will be added. They have included a lot of fish spawning beds as the Creek
is in need of diversity. The Commission was advised that one of the staging areas will
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4n) Page 3
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2013
become a picnic area with St. Louis Park Rotary assisting. Creekside Park will have an
asphalt trail extension and brought closer to the Creek. A zero depth canoe landing will
be incorporated to assist with access.
Mr. Worthington inquired where the trail funding is coming from. The initial agreement
with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District indicated the MCWD will provide
approximately $500,000 for trails initially with the City reimbursing them over the course
of a few years. The details of the agreement are yet to be solidified. Mr. Beane added
MCWD is also working on designing a bridge for the area.
Mr. Vaughan will keep the Commission updated regularly on this project.
c. 2013 Capital Improvement Program (Rick Birno & Rick Beane)
Mr. Birno, Mr. Beane, Mr. Eisold and Mr. Vaughan reviewed the 2013 Capital
Improvement program as follows:
• In the spring, approximately 250 trees will be planted on boulevards and in parks
along with another 100 trees planted in Westwood Hills Nature Center. More trees
will be planted in the fall.
• Following revamping of the lighting ordinance, plan to add lights to Aquila Park
field five. If enough funds, will correct electrical on/off issue at fields 1 – 4.
• The ball field backstop will be replaced at Browndale and Pennsylvania Parks.
• Four basketball hoops will be replaced with adjustable hoops at the Junior High
School.
• The soccer fields at Birchwood Park will be tilled and regarded which will assist
programming and winter rinks.
• Storage and concession buildings at Cedar Knoll Park will be remodeled.
• Courts at Carpenter, Fern Hill and Twin Lakes Parks will be resurfaced and
painted.
• Working with the Historical Society to develop a history center concept. The
concept will be brought before the Commission prior to City Council.
• The largest project in 2013 will be lighting the northwest fields at Louisiana Oaks
Park. Three of the four fields in the back will be lit, permanent bathroom, and a
sun shelter will be added in the north end of the park. The Soccer Association is
providing $15,000.00 to assist in the improvements. The new lighting system can
be controlled via Smartphone.
• The Northern Lights display at Oak Hill Park is being updated with more LED
lights.
• Flooring made in Germany will be installed in Browndale, Nelson and Oak Hill
Park buildings.
• The sun shelter at Pennsylvania Park will be replaced as will the playground
equipment at Oak Hill and Hampshire Parks.
• Additional rental skates will be purchased for the Rec Center skate shop. The
Hockey Association runs the skate shop but the city owns the skates.
• Various projects will occur at the Rec Center including pump replacement, new
surfaces in Aquatic Park showers, new chairs for the Banquet Room, repainting of
the interior of the East Arena, installation of west arena flooring, and replacement
windows installed in programming area.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4n) Page 4
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2013
• Trail sealcoating. A new product was tried on the Skate Park. All liked the smooth
surface so will identify parks viable for trail sealcoating. The life of a trail with
sealcoating is 7 – 10 years.
• The camera system will be enhanced throughout the Rec Center and Nature
Center. IT will also run fiber optic to various buildings which will allow
additional security.
• Various projects will be completed this year at Westwood Hills Nature Center
including improvements to the rental and brick houses, replacement of exhibit and
interpretive signage and dock replacement.
Members thanked staff for the information.
d. Rec Center Memorial Plaque Discussion (Rick Birno)
Mr. Birno indicated staff is looking for direction from the Commission on a policy
regarding memorial plaques located in the Rec Center. Individuals have added memorial
plaques in the Rec Center which have not been approved by staff. Controls/guidelines
need to be implemented to gain control over the items placed in The Re Center. To date,
staff has moved trophy cases and has controls in place for the publication of flyers. Staff
would like to create controls/process for memorial plaques. Some items to be included in
the policy are: timelines for how long they stay up, size constraints, design standards, etc.
Mr. Birno indicated they would like to relocate plaques to a formal designated area. Mr.
Beane reviewed the City has a bench dedication program which includes standards and
controls that need to be approved by staff. Benches stay until end of time.
Ms. Foulkes suggested having one memorial plaque which would include name plates for
the memorials. The formal plaques could be converted into a name plate. Mr. Hagemann
agreed a standardized wall and size would be beneficial. He recommended hanging the
plaques temporarily for a season. Mr. Worthington recommended a two-step approach:
installation of a temporary, unique plaque for a set period of time along with a permanent
name plate. He also suggested having a photo book available for viewing.
Mr. Birno will put together a potential policy for the Commission to review prior to
approval.
e. Derrick Keller Scoreboard Dedication (Rick Birno)
Mr. Birno distributed a view of the scoreboard that has been ordered to be installed in
Dakota Park. Daktronics will deliver the sign in March with installation scheduled for the
first of April. Field dedication is scheduled to occur at the first home game which is
tentatively scheduled for April 16 at approximately 3 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., weather
dependent.
f. Eliot School Apartment Proposal (Sean Walther)
Mr. Walther, Senior Planner, advised apartments are proposed at the former Eliot School
site. Members reviewed an application submission from Collage Architects relating to the
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4n) Page 5
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2013
two building proposal which would include 138 units. The proposal includes single
family lots be added on the north side to buffer immediate neighbors from buildings.
Mr. Walther indicated the Commission is asked to accept Park dedication fees charged
for the project or park land. As a guideline, the Comprehensive Plan leans toward
accepting park dedication fees versus land. The area under discussion is close in
proximity to Hampshire Park which will have a new play structure installed this year.
Park dedication fees would be deposited into a fund to be used only for new park items,
not for replacement or park maintenance.
The Council has approved the comprehensive plan amendment to High Density
Residential, Mr. Walther advised, and the Planning Commission had reviewed the
application earlier this evening. The developer has proposed to include a toddler play
structure in the north section and eliminate one of three single family lots. The developer
has promised that the play equipment would be available for use by anyone but the City
clarified that the equipment is not public equipment to be owned and maintained by the
City. The City will ask for a public egress of the play area to allow public to utilize play
area. Part of the PUD, Mr. Walther explained, is the developer needs to maintain the play
area forever until it is removed. Mr. Walther is asking the Commission for informal
direction on the play area.
Mr. Worthington inquired if the sidewalks on the east and west side of the proposed
development will be improved to which Mr. Walther advised they are reconstructing all
sidewalks around the proposed development. Hampshire Park is easily accessible as it is
approximately two to three blocks from proposed development.
Mr. Beane inquired on the timeline of the project. Final approval will be asked of Council
in early May; demolition will begin mid-summer. Mr. Birno advised the playground
structure proposed at Hampshire Park is geared for children ages 5 to 12.
Mr. Worthington asked about on-site water management to which Mr. Walther explained
there will be native plantings along with a rain pond on the north side of the plot. This
water will be piped to the south where underground water storage will be located in the
middle and lower ponds. Interestingly, the proposed project area is located in two
watershed districts – Bassett Creek and Minnehaha Creek.
Mr. Walther explained when the developer files the final plat for the project, they will
then pay the park dedication fee. The filing is anticipated to occur in June or July of 2013.
Members briefly discussed.
It was moved by Commission member Worthington for the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission to approve acceptance of park dedication fees in the amount of
$210,000 in lieu of park land for the development proposed on the Eliot School lot. Also
moved by Commission Member Worthington and Hagemann to recommend a public
access easement for the playground area on the project. Motion passed 5 – 0.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4n) Page 6
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2013
5. Old Business
a. Community Center Request for Proposal Update
Mr. Birno advised Request for Proposals (“RFP”) were sent to 13 potential architects
asking for further assessment of the program content, to provide a detailed site(s)
analysis, and estimate expected capital and operational costs. Four firms submitted
proposals which are 292 Design Group, Cuningham Group Architects, HGA Architects
and CNH Architects, Inc. The RFP requests firms to design buildings based on the task
force recommendations to be set in three potential locations. Formal interviews are
scheduled for March 5.
Mr. Beneke indicated an interest to be involved in this process. Mr. Birno indicated the
interviews are set at this time but will advise Ms. Walsh of his interest.
6. Staff Reports (Rick Birno / Rick Beane)
This was a great season for outdoor winter rinks, Mr. Birno advised. The rinks and warming
houses officially closed on President’s Day. The adult leagues are almost full and youth league
registrations continually arrive. The spring/summer Parks & Recreation brochure will be
finalized soon and scheduled to be mailed to homes in mid-March. Request for Proposals are
being sent and meetings are being hosted for upcoming projects in 2013.
Mr. Beane indicated staff began rehabilitating picnic tables when the outdoor ice rinks closed.
Annually staff reviews all picnic tables and rebuilds or repaints them as deemed necessary. The
crew is trimming trees at Westwood Hills Nature Center and will move to parks when the snow
obstructions are reduced. Staff recently went to turf training which was educational. Winter rink
nets will be repaired prior to storing for the season, indicated Mr. Beane. In the Park
Maintenance Department, there is one pending retirement.
7. Other / Future Agenda Items
a. American’s with Disabilities Act Park Plan
The City entered into a contract with Julee Quarve-Peterson, Inc. to develop a plan to get
City parks up to code. The plan will be spread over a few years to assist in budgeting
proposed changes, Mr. Birno indicated. When the formal plan arrives, which is expected
in April, staff will bring to the Commission for review.
b. Member Comments
Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the Highway 100 bridge committee is in need of volunteers to
which Mr. Hagemann responded there are enough volunteers whom will meet soon. Mr.
Hagemann indicated discussions will include the width for on-road bike trails for
Minnetonka Boulevard and there is no commitment for an LRT trail at this time. Mr.
Birno inquired if there will be north/south trail connections from the Highway 100
bridges. Mr. Hagemann advised there will be a trail connection although may not be well
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4n) Page 7
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2013
developed. He indicated MnDOT’s latest plans show sidewalk and marked bike access on
the east side of Highway 100.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the lighting of the tower on West 36th Street and Wooddale
Avenue. Staff advised the ribbon cutting for the Dream Elevator, located on the corner of
West 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue, will be held Monday, February 25 at 6 p.m. All
are welcome to attend.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the problems encountered with reducing the deer herd. Mr.
Vaughan stated a contractor was hired to help remove a total of seven deer from the City,
six from Westwood Hills Nature Center. A mishap occurred in the Lake Forest area as the
contractor was on City of Minneapolis property which was not per the City’s instruction.
The deer were baited on City of Minneapolis property and shot at 6 a.m. which provided
complaints from area residents. The Contractor was fired and the City of Minneapolis did
not site them. The goal was to remove 23 deer but the efforts were halted after the
incident. Mr. Vaughan and the City Manager attended a public meeting in the
neighborhood. The Department of Natural Resources defended the City for initiating deer
removal as most cities in the area do removal. The neighborhood was mostly upset
because of non-notification. Deer herds are studied via aerial flyovers. Deer per acre
numbers are determined by the amount of deer habitat in the City. This study indicated
there are not enough wooded areas available for the amount of deer present. The City
Council will reevaluate their procedures moving forward.
The increased coyote population was mentioned by Mr. Hawkinson. Mr. Vaughan
advised hazing from residents is encouraged to scare away and promote co-existing. An
expert on human-wildlife conflicts will provide information on what to do on March 7.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member Worthington to adjourn at 8:16 p.m. The motion passed
5 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4o
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period April
27, 2013 through May 10 , 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUMMARY: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s
review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
360.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
360.00
1,152.35DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3D SPECIALTIES INC
1,152.35
2,325.00POLICE G & A TRAININGA&S TRAINING LLC
2,325.00
155.94ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARABERNATHY, LISA
155.94
1,339.54WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
1,339.54
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC
225.00
89.19PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESACE SUPPLY CO
89.19
547.09STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERACME TOOLS
547.09
14.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEADOLPHSON, ERIK
14.00
99.55OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
99.55
1,779.15PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESAMERICAN FLAGPOLE & FLAG CO
1,779.15
29.64-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
3,167.72SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3,138.08
381.45GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
381.45
585.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
585.96
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 2
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
114.03OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
114.03
6,446.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,995.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
8,442.20
234.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
234.00
595.31GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBARNUM GATE SERVICES INC
595.31
45.00FITNESS PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEBARON, JEAN
45.00
19.75DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
19.75
8.85ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
7,444.89ARENA MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE
1,285.33ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
8,739.07
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN
225.00
379.43HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
379.43
204.53ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
204.53
17,463.64STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEBITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC
4,981.80CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
22,445.44
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBOLDISCHAR, PATRICK
1,000.00
55.42HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBOLDUC, BRUCE
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 3
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
55.42
3,164.00ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESBOLTON & MENK INC
3,164.00
2,100.00HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBROWNDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA
2,100.00
1,730.32IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,730.32
15,237.92TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
15,237.92
390.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
390.00
2,279.93FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
82.50SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
2,362.43
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
1,154.25E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
1,154.25
112.02FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS CORPORATION
36.11FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
81.08VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
318.50WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
547.71
170.60-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
16.69ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
489.32ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
774.71ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
17.95HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
7.50IT G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
10.57IT G & A POSTAGE
83.97POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
2,497.62POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 4
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16.04POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
154.31POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
12.14POLICE G & A POSTAGE
46.74POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
10.00SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAINING
518.00SUPERVISORYTRAINING
422.98PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
279.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
1.77-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
154.46ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
417.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
86.87HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.00JR LEADERS TRAINING
26.80BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.60WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
516.47WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
200.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
51.97VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.25VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.95VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
165.00CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
42.90PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2.50-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
16.08TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
38.90CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
7,158.56
17,055.00ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
659.38UNINSURED LOSS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
17,714.38
4.52BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECOMCAST
81.90WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
86.42
13.67STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
13.67
675.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICECONCRETE ETC INC
96.25-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,496.25PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 5
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,075.00
1.08-SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCOOKE JP CO
16.78SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.70
8,962.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES
8,962.75
600.00SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOVERT TRACK GROUP INC
600.00
9.62-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
1,388.27DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,378.65
1,676.19YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUECRYSTAL, CITY OF
1,676.19
62.06POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
50.00FACILITY ROOM RENTAL RENT REVENUE
112.06
1,544.04SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
1,544.04
343.87WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
343.87
48.15GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESDEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC
48.15
4,747.19INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
4,747.19
291.00ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
291.00
16.29-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDIAMOND ENERGY SYSTEMS INC
528.22REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
511.93
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 6
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
212.24HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
212.24
159.84HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEDUSAIRE, MARTIN
159.84
3,102.21SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
3,102.21
338.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEELECTRIC PUMP INC
338.50
150.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENCORE BROKERS
150.00
36,400.26SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
36,400.26
75.56PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
75.56
186.62ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
186.62
803.43STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIFINANCE & COMMERCE
803.43
6,961.38PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIFOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONM
6,961.38
232.97ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
232.97
22.00HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEGARSKE, BETTE
22.00
10,584.34ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
10,584.34
43.76HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEGASPARD, CHRIS
43.76
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 7
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
45.06POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTGLOCK INC
45.06
633.75WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
633.75
432.67VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
432.67
700.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGRANICUS INC
700.00
4,820.00ARENA MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCEGRANT'S PRECISION PAINTING LLC
24,342.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
29,162.00
63,161.38GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS
63,161.38
451.92EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
451.92
1,939.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHALLBERG ENGINEERING INC
1,939.00
49.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEHALVORSON, LORRIE
49.00
4,949.32STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEHARDRIVES INC
9,276.01CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
14,225.33
45.50ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
45.50
7,645.09POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
7,645.09
82,885.83MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHENRICKSEN PSG
82,885.83
49.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEHESTENESS, HEATHER
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 8
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
49.00
518.34INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
518.34
34.07INSTALLATIONSMALL TOOLSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
98.34IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.22PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
229.63
206.57PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
206.57
10,000.00HOUSING LAND TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOMES WITHIN REACH
10,000.00
736.44UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSHOPKINS AUTO BODY INC
736.44
339.95BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHOTSY OF MN
339.95
247.15SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHUBER UNIVERSAL SERVICES LLC
247.15
1,476.13WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIDEAL SERVICE INC
1,476.13
191.48REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
191.48
940.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATINSIGHT EDGE
940.00
444.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
444.51
20.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGIPMA-HR MINNESOTA
20.00
144.21OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
144.21
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 9
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
21.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
31.32IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
47.99VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.08PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
49.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
160.16
2,300.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTJOBSINMINNEAPOLIS.COM
2,300.00
254.30WEED CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
254.30
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
14.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEKENZIE, KAREN
14.00
134.08-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSKIEFER & ASSOCIATES LLC, ADOLP
2,084.34AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,950.26
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICKOTHRADE SEWER WATER & EXCAVAT
2,500.00
2,181.00ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESKRUEGER INTERNATIONAL INC
3,732.96REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
13,170.84PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
19,084.80
55.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
55.85
56.32ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
99.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
155.32
41,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTLOCALOOP INC
41,000.00
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 10
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
149.95GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESLOEFFLER SHOES
559.85PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,119.60PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
659.75REC CENTER BUILDING CLOTHING AND TOOL ALLOWANCE
499.85VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
789.75WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
169.95SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,948.70
2,594.97PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
2,594.97
2,414.70HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP
2,414.70
14.78-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMEGGITT, TERRY
229.78HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
215.00
12.14WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
40.30WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
11.75SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
42.31PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
226.14PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
332.64
6.97SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETHODIST HOSPITAL
6.97
342.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
342.00
316,652.43OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
316,652.43
2,814.00PATROLTRAININGMHSRC/RANGE
2,814.00
236.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
236.96
106.88POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 11
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
106.88
908.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
908.00
117.96EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
117.96
15.00ARENA MAINTENANCE TRAININGMINNESOTA ICE ARENA MGRS ASSOC
15.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
158.00ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL
158.00
53.13POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS
53.13
517.13SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
517.13
25.00REILLY G & A TRAININGMN AWWA
25.00
10.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
10.00
231.09COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAININGMORRISON, GARY
231.09
125.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMPCA
125.00
688.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
688.00
372.28-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSNAGENGAST DOORS LLC, JOHN
5,787.28REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
5,415.00
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 12
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
90.30DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
474.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
96.74GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
14.92SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
676.81
180.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNIGP
180.00
779.92ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESNORTHWEST LASERS & INSTRUMENTS
779.92
825.85POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
825.85
1,221.18ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESOCCUPATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTE
1,221.18
55.48ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
5.62HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
94.04PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
10.53ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
81.21ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
246.88
1,431.30INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,431.30
296.26SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
58.24STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
354.50
303.89PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
53.44OPENOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
209.48OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
53.44NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
620.25
6.03POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEPETTY CASH
21.50DWI ENFORCEMENT LICENSES
2,650.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PETTY
2,677.53
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 13
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
473.99WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT
473.99
35.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSPLEAA
35.00
678.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
26.72GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
705.68
20,000.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER
20,000.00
220.91PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYQUEST ENGINEERING INC
220.91
120.74IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEQUILL CORP
120.74
2,192.01ARENA MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESR & R SPECIALTIES
2,192.01
2,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWRAIMI, SEAN
2,000.00
2,612.32FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,114.80REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
991.20SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,718.32
232.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRASCHKE, KENNETH & BARBARA
232.50
5,952.94EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTRECON ROBOTICS INC
5,952.94
47.65POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
16.42POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
64.07
202.29-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRICOH USA INC
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 14
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,365.14IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,162.85
956.53WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC
956.53
42.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEROBELLO, JENNIFER
42.00
1,140.47TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTRTVISION INC
1,140.47
132.06HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ
132.06
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERALDI, PAUL
200.00
217.21PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
217.21
1,914.84GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP
1,914.84
1,800.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC, J
1,800.00
37,674.74CE INSPECTION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
37,674.74
212.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHAFFER, SHARON
212.50
2,335.86PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
2,335.86
190.24GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSIGN PRODUCERS INC
190.24
1,320.93ESCROWSGENERALSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
11.95COMM DEV PLANNING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
1,332.88
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 15
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
570.00PATROLTRAININGST PAUL POLICE PROF DEV INSTIT
570.00
1,424.39PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTANDARD SPRING
1,424.39
10.48OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSTEMMER, LUKE
10.48
89.46WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSTEWART TITLE OF MINNESOTA INC
89.46
869.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
869.02
194.81ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
1,061.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
896.75STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL NOTICES
79.92STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL NOTICES
2,232.48
34.00FINANCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSSWANSON, BRIAN
51.08FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
85.08
3.98POLICE G & A TRAININGTARGET BANK
25.05POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
8.42WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.45
95.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTCALMC
95.00
74.55BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
74.56WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
104.06BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
253.17
417.75ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
417.75
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 16
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,338.04PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
1,338.04
593.16RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTRAFFIC CONTROL CORP
593.16
1,226.10GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETRANSMISSION SHOP INC
1,226.10
665.00TRAININGTRAININGTRUSIGHT
665.00
1,718.31SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
12,835.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,564.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
19,117.31
14.00SEASON PASSES PROGRAM REVENUEUHDE, JANICE
14.00
23,454.25POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTUHL CO INC
2,645.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
26,099.25
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
234.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
234.00
204.00HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEUNZE, EILEEN
204.00
404.48OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
404.48
14,956.24WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
14,956.24
177.41ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
177.41
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 17
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
60.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS
60.00
74.08COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
50.46SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,894.24CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,018.78
793.02ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
793.02
138.78PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYWALSER CHRYSLER JEEP
138.78
38.24GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIESWALTHER, SEAN
38.24
2,868.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
2,868.40
1,182.47PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEBBER RECREATIONAL DESIGN
1,182.47
700.85WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
700.85
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWENDORFF, MICHAEL & KATIE
1,000.00
15.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSWOOD DUCK NEWSGRAM
15.00
11,194.53ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
118.54STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
11,313.07
297.88HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEZANDER, LOIS
297.88
216.21PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC
216.21
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 18
5/14/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:41:43R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
5/10/2013 -4/27/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
144.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
144.50
491.96GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEZIEGLER INC
491.96
155.09DAILY ADMISSION PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
1,114.94SEASON PASSES ADVERTISING
1,270.03
Report Totals 1,011,601.91
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 4o)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 19
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project
#2012-0100
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$22,295,084.23 for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project #2012-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to take the final step to allow this
project to move forward?
SUMMARY: A total of four (4) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid
results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. $22,295,084.23
Ames Construction, Inc. **$22,966,912.84
Carl Bolander & Sons Co $23,311,859.41
Lunda Construction, Inc. $26,675,727.18
Engineer’s Estimate $22,633,728.60
**Denotes corrected amount
Staff and our consultant, Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH), have reviewed all of the bids
submitted and have tabulated the results. A review of the bids indicates C.S. McCrossan
Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. McCrossan is a reputable contractor that has
successfully completed work for the City before. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded
to the firm in the amount of $22,295,084.23 (see attached SEH Recommendation of Award
letter).
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in late-May or early June.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.) with an estimated total project budget of $31,458,500. The project will be financed
through various sources including Federal, State, Met Council, and City funds. Funding details
are provided in the Discussion section.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Recommendation of Award Letter
State Award Concurrence Award Letter
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Engineering
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project #2012-0100
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) identifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project, which provides for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7, also includes
pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads
in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and
Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation
and safety needs of both MnDOT and the City as well as quality of life and redevelopment needs
in this area of the city.
Bid and Award Approval Process
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor and in Finance &
Commerce on April 4, 11, and 18, 2013. In addition, plans and specifications are noticed on the
City Website and are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest
CDN.com. Email notification was provided to five minority associations and final printed plans
were made available for viewing at the AGC of Minnesota Planroom, SEH, Inc office and at City
Hall.
All bid documentation required as part of the delegated contract process for federally funded
projects was submitted to Mn/DOT by C.S. McCrossan Construction. Mn/DOT has reviewed
the documentation and has cleared this project for award to C.S. McCrossan Construction.
Public Involvement
A Groundbreaking Ceremony is planned for June 5, 2013 at 9:00am. An Open House for area
residents and business owners is also being planned for late May early June. The intent of the
Open House is to provide information on the Contractor, project schedule, construction impacts
and other project information of interest. Representatives from the City, MnDOT, City’s
Consultant, (SEH, Inc.) and the Contractor will be presenting the information at the meeting and
will be available for questions.
Financial Details
Presented below are the latest estimated project costs based on recent bid results. All of the
funding sources are also presented below:
Current Estimated Project Costs
Interchange Construction $18,938,930
MCES Forcemain Construction $ 3,095,754
Public Art Construction $ 260,400
Construction Total $22,295,084
Construction Contingency (5% of Interchange and Public Art) $ 960,000
Preliminary and Final Design Engineering $ 2,250,000
Public Art – Artist Contract $ 189,600
Construction Engineering (by MnDOT) $ 1,800,000
SEH Consultant Eng’r Support (Const. Eng., RAP admin., CPM schedule) $ 885,000
Undergrounding Power Lines $ 872,000
Right of Way Acquisition Services (appraisals, title work, attorney fees) $ 100,000
Right of Way (Purchasing land and easements, condemnation costs) $ 2,600,000
Total Estimated Project Costs $31,951,684
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project #2012-0100
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
Federal Funds (recently allocated by Met Council) $2,500,000
MnDOT Access Management Funds $1,000,000
MnDOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 594,000
MnDOT (donated Construction Eng’r - in lieu of funds) $1,800,000
TED Grant (MnDOT & DEED Program) $3,000,000
MCES Funds for Forcemain Work (includes City admin expenses) $3,157,668
City Funds (20% construction grant match – source HRA Levy) $2,398,000
City Funds (Preliminary and Final Design Eng’r – source HRA Levy) $2,250,000
City Funds (Right of Way – source HRA Levy) $2,700,000
City - Water and Sewer Utility Funds $ 200,000
City Funds (Misc Const., Public Art, RAP, Eng’r Support - source HRA Levy) $5,285,000
Total Estimated Funding $31,951,684
Estimated City Share $12,070,060
Although the overall project cost estimate has increased since the previous estimate presented in
an April 15, 2013 Council Report ($493,184 increase), the City’s share of the project cost has
decreased ($714,484 decrease). The increased costs are a partial result of a five percent (5%)
construction contingency now included in the estimate and increased Design Engineering costs.
Other changes include increased participation by MCES for the higher related Forcemain costs
(approximately $1,000,000 in additional expenses based on bid results).
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.) with an estimated total project budget of $31,458,500.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is tentatively planned to begin about June 1st with substantial completion expected
in late 2014 with final completion about June of 2015.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project #2012-0100Page 4
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project #2012-0100Page 5
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project - Project #2012-0100Page 6
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development -
6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to approve Second Reading to Adopt Ordinance amending the Zoning Map
Amendment from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-4 Multiple Family Residence
District for a portion of the property at 6800 Cedar Lake Road to be described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments, and authorize publication.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Final Plat of Eliot Park Apartments with conditions.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) with conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to rezone the property to R4
Multiple Family Residence to be consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan land use
designation of High Density Residential? Is the Final Plat in conformance with the approved
Preliminary Plat? Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and modifications needed for the proposed development plan?
SUMMARY: The proposed development includes two new apartment buildings with a total of
138 units, plus two new single family lots, at the former Eliot School property located at 6800
Cedar Lake Road. The existing school building would be razed. The proposed apartment
buildings would generally be three stories in height, and two stories in some areas. The proposed
site plan provides sidewalk connections through and around the site and includes areas for
stormwater management, outdoor recreation, and landscaping. The development provides
underground parking for residents, and 20 stalls of surface parking for guests along a private
driveway between the two buildings. An existing paved parking lot at 6720 Cedar Lake Road
would be removed and platted as an outlot. The overall net density of the development would be
approximately 33 units per acre.
Eliot Park Apartments, LLC requests final approvals of the Rezoning, Final Plat and Final PUD.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning at its February 20, 2013 meeting.
Planning Commission also recommended approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD subject to
conditions at its April 17, 2013 meeting.
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
Ordinance
Resolutions
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Development Plans
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development
applications for conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD on April
17, 2013. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD
with conditions. An excerpt of the draft meeting minutes are attached for your information.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential (RH)
Current Zoning: R2 Single Family Residence District
Proposed Zoning: R4 Multiple Family Residence District (portion of property)
Property Area: 186,101 square feet or 4.27 acres (net area)
Existing Use: Former Eliot School building and grounds
REZONING:
The proposed apartment parcel at
6800 Cedar Lake Road (proposed to
be described as Lot 1, Block 1, Eliot
Park Apartments) is guided for High
Density Residential which allows
densities up to 75 units per acre. The
applicant requests a rezoning to R4
Multiple Family Residence zoning
district over the apartment parcel.
The R4 District generally allows
densities up to 30 units per acre, and
City Council may allow higher
densities in the R4 District with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The rezoning to R4 is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan designation.
City Council approved the First
Reading of the Ordinance to rezone
the property on March 18, 2013.
FINAL PLAT:
The City Council must find that the Final Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat.
City staff finds the Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Planning Commission
reviewed and recommended approval of the Final Plat.
The subject property currently includes two parcels. The main parcel is located at 6800 Cedar
Lake Road and includes the school building and grounds. There is a smaller parcel at 6720
Cedar lake Road that is currently paved for overflow parking from the school site. The Eliot
Park Apartments plat would subdivide 6800 Cedar Lake Road into three parcels and plat 6720
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Cedar Lake Road into an outlot. The plat also dedicates right-of-way over Cedar Lake Road and
Hampshire Avenue South.
Lot Information:
Lot 1, Block 1 would be 164,551 square feet or 3.78 acres. The proposed use of this lot would
be two apartment buildings totaling 138-units. This lot meets the minimum requirements of the
proposed R4 zoning district.
Lot 2, Block 1 would be a new single family lot that is 60.04 feet wide, 135.50 feet deep, and
8,132 square feet or 0.19 acre in area. This lot meets the minimum requirements of the R2
zoning district.
Lot 3, Block 1 would be a new single family lot that is 60.03 feet wide, 135.50 feet deep, and
8,130 square feet or 0.19 acre in area. This lot meets the minimum requirements of the R2
zoning district.
Outlot A would be approximately 35 feet wide, approximately 154 feet deep, and 5,287 square
feet or 0.12 acre in area. The Outlot is not large enough to be built upon. The developer
proposes to remove the existing pavement and to landscape the site, rather than use it for off-site
parking, because it cannot meet current parking lot design requirements.
Right-of-way Dedication:
The plat dedicates 18,199 square feet or 0.42 acres of right-of-way over Hampshire Avenue
South and Cedar Lake Road.
Utility Easements:
The plat provides all the required drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the site,
plus additional drainage and utility easements over the proposed stormwater system. The
easements over the private drainage systems provide the City with the right to access the
facilities in case of emergencies, but the private property owner must own and maintain the
system. All utility service lines must be buried.
Park & Trail Dedication
The developer will be required pay park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication. The
park dedication fee is $1,500 per dwelling unit, and the trail dedication fee is $225 per unit.
PUD REVIEW:
The Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) application is consistent with the Preliminary PUD
approved by the City Council. The following analysis in the Zoning Compliance Table focuses
on the apartment site and assumes the zoning will change to R4 Multiple Family Residential as
requested by the applicant. The proposal meets most requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Some modifications to the standards may be approved with a PUD.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Zoning Compliance Table.
Factor Allowed/Required Proposed Met?
Use Multiple Family Residence 138-unit apartment complex
Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres for a PUD 3.78 acres (apartment lot only)
Yes
Density 30 units/acre; more with a PUD 36.5 units/acre (apartment lot only);
32.8 units/acre overall net density
(PUD modifications required)
Yes
Height 3 stories or 40 ft.; taller
buildings allowed with a PUD
3 stories and 43 feet
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Parking 193 stalls (1 per bedroom) 198 off-street stalls; plus 40 on-
street stalls
Yes
Front Yard
(South)
47 feet; modifications allowed
with a PUD
25 feet
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Rear Yard
(North)
None required with a PUD 59 feet
Yes
Side Yard
(East)
None required with a PUD
North Building: 19 feet
South Building: 24 feet
(PUD modifications required)
Yes
Side Yard
(West)
None required with a PUD North Building: 18.5 feet
South Building: 14 feet
(PUD modifications required)
Yes
Floor Area
Ratio
None with a PUD 0.89
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Ground
Floor Area
Ratio
0.35 with a PUD 0.33;
(0.25 when underground parking
bonus is applied)
Yes
D.O.R.A. 19,096 square feet (12%) 21,817 (13.7%)
Yes
Landscaping 138 trees 129 trees
(Alternative landscaping needed)
Yes
147 shrubs 496 shrubs,
1,373 perennials/grasses
Alternative landscaping Two courtyard patio spaces and
toddler playground.
Stormwater Required city and watershed
standards
Stormwater management is
provided
Yes
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Architectural Design
Description - The building includes articulation and fenestration that adds to the visual interest
and breaks up the mass of the building. The proposed development follows the height, massing,
and articulation recommendations of the Eliot School Site Design Guidelines. The design
incorporates several walk up units on the ground level facing surrounding public streets and the
private street between the buildings, which adds a “front door” presence on all sides of the
building.
The proposed building ranges from two to three stories in height. The height of the three-story
portions of the building is approximately 38 feet. However, each of the buildings has a portion
that measures 43 feet above the proposed grade, including the southeast portion of the South
Building and the northeast portion of the North Building (at the underground garage entrance).
An increase over the 40 feet height maximum may be allowed with a Planned Unit Development
and is one of the modifications requested by the applicant.
Materials - Building materials include brick, glass, stone sills, cement board siding, prefinished
metal panel, and decorative concrete masonry units. The percentage of class I materials varies
depending on the elevation, and ranges from 60% to 68%. The building meets the minimum
60% class I requirement on each building elevation.
Parking
The zoning code requires one parking stall per bedroom for multiple family residential buildings.
The development has a total of 193 bedrooms and provides 198 off-site parking stalls. Off-street
parking is provided in a combination of 178 underground parking stalls and 20 surface parking
stalls. There are also more than 40 on-street parking stalls available along Hampshire Avenue
and Idaho Avenue adjacent to the site. The underground garages include a total of 28 tandem
parking stalls, four ADA accessible parking stalls, and compact stalls. The existing paved
parking area on the lot at 6720 Cedar Lake Road will be removed and landscaped. The plan
meets the zoning code parking requirements.
Utilities
The City Engineer reviewed and approved the plans. Stormwater from the site will be managed
in a combination of a pond, underground storage, and a swale. The proposed system meets the
City’s rate control requirements. The plan requires review and approval by the Bassett Creek
and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts. Permitting may be handled by Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District alone, if Bassett Creek Watershed is agreeable, since all the drainage is
directed to the south side of the property.
Grading
The grading plan includes excavation of the underground parking and the stormwater pond near
Cedar Lake Road and Idaho Avenue. The City Engineer reviewed and approved the grading
plan.
Traffic and Circulation:
Findings - A traffic study was conducted by SRF Consulting Group which concludes that the
impact of the proposed development is negligible and does not warrant traffic control changes at
Hampshire Avenue or Idaho Avenue. The development, as proposed, will generate significantly
fewer trips during the morning peak hour, a similar amount of trips during the afternoon peak
hour, and approximately 300 more daily trips than compared to the former Eliot School at full
capacity.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Results of the traffic study indicate that all study
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable
overall level of service (LOS) of LOS D or better
during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the
proposed development. Side street delays are
expected to be similar or less than existing conditions
for vehicles waiting on Idaho Avenue and Hampshire
Avenue to enter Cedar Lake Road. These delays are
acceptable and do not require mitigation. Minor
queuing is expected to develop along Cedar Lake
Road as a result of vehicles waiting to turn left onto Idaho Avenue or Hampshire Avenue,
particularly during the afternoon peak hour.
Results of the traffic study indicate that all study intersections, with the exception of the Cedar
Lake Road/Louisiana Avenue intersection, are currently operating at an acceptable overall LOS
C or better during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Of note:
1. The Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Avenue intersection is currently operating at a LOS E
(at capacity) during the afternoon peak hour, with westbound queues extending nearly
one-quarter mile to the east.
2. Although the side street delays along Idaho Avenue and Hampshire Avenue are at LOS F
and LOS E, respectively, the average side-street delay is less than one minute and does
not warrant mitigation.
Recommended Improvements – To improve existing operations and queuing issues along Cedar
Lake Road, the traffic study recommended considering the following improvements:
1. Optimize the signal timing and install flashing yellow arrow phasing for all left-turn
movements at the Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Avenue intersection.
2. Review existing access near the Cedar Lake Road/Louisiana Avenue intersection to
determine if any modifications or consolidation can occur.
3. Restripe Cedar Lake Road (Hampshire to Idaho) to a three-lane roadway section to
minimize the impact of left-turning vehicles at those two intersections.
Staff was also asked to consider installation of a traffic signal at Hampshire Avenue. Based on
the results of the SRF study, a signal is not warranted (of benefit) at this location. A signal
installation would cost approximately $200,000 and would increase vehicle delays on both Cedar
Lake Road and Hampshire Avenue. Also, a signal is no safer than the three recommended
improvements above. Based on this, staff would not recommend installation of a signal at this
location.
Summary – In summary, the impact from the proposed development is negligible and does not
warrant traffic control improvements. However, traffic operations along Cedar Lake Road have
been deteriorating and staff expects that to continue. As a result, staff intends to include the
three improvements recommended above in the 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
which is currently being developed.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The plan meets the DORA requirements. It provides 13.7% of the lot area in DORA. The
DORA elements include two courtyard patio spaces with outdoor seating, a toddler playground,
and pedestrian walkways through the site.
Intersection Level of Service Table.
Level of
Service
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
A ≤10 sec ≤10 sec
B 10-20 sec 10-15 sec
C 20-35 sec 15-25 sec
D 35-55 sec 25-35 sec
E 55-80 sec 35-50 sec
F ≥80 sec ≥50 sec
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Landscaping
The landscaping plan provides a variety of 92 deciduous canopy trees, 16 evergreen trees, and 41
ornamental trees. There are also 496 shrubs and 1,373 perennials/grasses. Many of the plants
selected are native species. The plantings are focused along the boulevards, pedestrian
walkways, patios and building foundations. The plan includes the use of alternative landscaping
features, including a rooftop deck off the second floor community room in the South Building
and two patio areas with amenities. Notably, the site will have 46% pervious area (green space).
Staff finds the plan meets the landscaping requirements with the use of the alternative
landscaping provision.
Tree removal is included in the demolition plan. The proposed landscaping plan satisfies the
City’s tree replacement requirements. The boulevard trees along the Cedar Lake Road will be
protected and preserved.
Public Sidewalks
The existing public sidewalks along Hampshire Avenue, Idaho Avenue and Cedar Lake Road are
five feet wide. The existing sidewalk along Idaho Avenue is generally located at the back of the
curb due to the grades. The zoning code requires sidewalks to be six feet wide adjacent to
multiple family developments. The plan proposes to remove and replace the sidewalks
surrounding the site at the required six feet width and generally provides a five feet wide
landscaped boulevard between the sidewalk and street curb.
Along the south property line, the proposed public sidewalk may partially be located upon
private property. An easement for purposes of maintaining a public sidewalk along Cedar Lake
Road shall be granted to the City for any part of that public sidewalk that lies within private
property.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OBJECTIVES:
The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the
proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”:
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
The building siting, massing, articulation, orientation, façade entrances, sidewalks
connections and landscape features provide integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the
project.
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
The site is served by Metro Transit Routes #9, #649, and #663. Route #9 is classified a
“frequently operating transit line” under the zoning code. The plan also provides enhanced
sidewalk access along and across the site.
3. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD.
The purpose of a travel demand management strategy is to spread the number of automobile
trips throughout the day, reducing the negative impacts that occur during peak travel times.
Generally, office uses generate the greatest peak demand and can most influence these
impacts. This residential development distributes the traffic from the two buildings to
different streets and provides ample distance between Cedar Lake Road and the nearest
driveway entrances.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
4. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter
requirements:
The plan provides 13.7% of the lot area in designed outdoor recreation area (DORA), which
exceeds the 12% minimum requirement.
5. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The development includes a site plan that provides enhanced gathering spaces, sidewalks, a
visually interesting and pedestrian-scale development, and the required class I exterior
building materials on all building elevations.
PUD MODIFICATIONS:
The application includes the following PUD modifications:
1. Increased residential density from 30 units per acre to 36.5 units per acre
2. Increased Floor Area Ratio from 0.70 to 0.90
3. Increased building height to allow a portion of the South Building to be 43 feet tall
4. Increased building height to allow a portion of the North Building to be 43 feet tall
5. Reduced front yard (south side) to 25 feet
6. Reduced side yard (east side) to 19 feet for the North Building
7. Reduced side yard (east side) to 24 feet for the South Building
8. Reduced side yard (west side) to 18 feet for the North Building
9. Reduced side yard (west side) to 14 feet for the South Building
10. Allowing two principal buildings on a lot
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
City staff extended the City’s review period for the applications to 120-days. The review period
expires May 22, 2013. City Council must act upon the application. If the City Council does not
act upon the application it will automatically be approved, unless the applicant provided a letter
to the City extending the review period.
Approval of the Final PUD requires a supermajority of the full City Council (five of seven members).
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
ORDINANCE NO.____-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
6800 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
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. 13-02-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 the following described lands from their
existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for
the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
(Area to be Platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments)
Those parts of the following described property:
Lots 5 to 27 inclusive, Richmond 3rd Addition, including vacated 22nd Street and that part of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, described as commencing at a point on East line of West Half of Northeast Quarter, distant 534 feet South from Northeast corner thereof; thence westerly, along a line drawn to the Northeast corner of Lot 19 said Richmond 3rd Addition, to the westerly line of Hampshire Avenue South and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence West to the Northeast corner of said Lot 19; thence South along said addition to the northwesterly line of Cedar Lake Road; thence Northeasterly, along said northwesterly line, to the westerly line of Hampshire Avenue South; thence northerly to the point of beginning and there terminating. Which lie southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 28, said Richmond 3rd Addition; thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 46 minutes 08 seconds East, along the westerly lines of Lots 28 and 27 said Richmond 3rd Addition, a distance of 60.03 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 05 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 135.50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 46 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 40.02 feet; thence South 89 degrees 05 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 135.50 feet to the easterly line of Lot 5 said Richmond 3rd Addition and said line there terminating.
from R2 Single Family Residence District to R4 Multiple Family Residence District.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 13-02-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.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Public Hearing February 20, 2013
First Reading March 18, 2013
Second Reading May 20, 2013
Date of Publication May 30, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect June 14, 2013
Reviewed for Administration
Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Eliot
Park Apartments has submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the
manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the
City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park and the preliminary plat approved by Resolution 13-045.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Lots 4 to 28 inclusive, Richmond 3rd Addition, including vacated 22nd Street and
that part of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows:
Commencing at a point on East line of West Half of Northeast Quarter, distant
534 feet South from Northeast corner thereof; thence West 157.5 to Northeast
corner of Lot 19, Richmond 3rd Addition; thence South along said addition to
center line of Cedar Lake Road; thence Northeasterly along same to East line of
West Half of Northeast Quarter; thence North along said East line to point of
beginning.
And, that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21,
described as follows: Commencing at a point in the center line of Cedar Lake
Road where the East line of the West Half of said Northeast Quarter intersects
said center line; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Cedar Lake
Road to a point 75 feet Northeasterly from the point of intersection of said East
line of said West Half of Northeast Quarter with the center of said Cedar Lake
Road; thence North and parallel with the said East line of said West Half of
Northeast Quarter of said Section 8 to the center line of the vacated alley; thence
Southwest parallel with the North line of said Cedar Lake Road 75 feet more or
less to the East line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence South
along the East line of said West Half of Northeast Quarter to the point of
beginning.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
Torrens Property
Torrens Certificate of Title No. 95156 (Lot 10, Richmond 3rd Addition)
Torrens Certificate of Title No. 133800 (Lots 25 and 27, Richmond 3rd Addition)
Torrens Certificate of Title No. 155930 (Lot 28, Richmond 3rd Addition)
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Conclusion
1. The proposed final plat of Eliot Park Apartments is hereby approved and accepted
by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of
the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following
conditions:
a. Park dedication and trail dedication fees, totaling $210,000 and $31,500
respectively, shall be paid to the City prior to the City signing the final plat.
b. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount
of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the
final plat is provided to the City.
c. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot
be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design
and 100% screened from off-site.
d. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of
any condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
5. 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 March 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE RELATING TO ZONING
FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-4 MULTIPLE FAMIY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT
6800 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
was received on January 22, 2013, from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-047 approving the Preliminary
PUD on March 18, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at the meeting of April
17, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 6-
0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Eliot Park Apartments, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the R4 –
Multiple Family Residence district located at 6800 Cedar Lake Road for the legal description as
follows, to-wit:
(Area to be Platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Eliot Park Apartments)
Those parts of the following described property:
Lots 5 to 27 inclusive, Richmond 3rd Addition, including vacated 22nd Street and that part of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, described as commencing at a point on East line of West Half of Northeast Quarter, distant 534 feet South from Northeast corner thereof; thence westerly, along a line drawn to the Northeast corner of Lot 19 said Richmond 3rd Addition, to the westerly line of Hampshire Avenue South and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence West to the Northeast corner of said Lot 19; thence South along said addition to the northwesterly line of Cedar Lake Road; thence Northeasterly, along said northwesterly line, to the westerly line of Hampshire Avenue South; thence northerly to the point of beginning and there terminating. Which lie southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 28, said Richmond 3rd Addition; thence southerly on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 46 minutes 08
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
seconds East, along the westerly lines of Lots 28 and 27 said Richmond 3rd Addition, a distance of 60.03 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 05 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 135.50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 46 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 40.02 feet; thence South 89 degrees 05 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 135.50 feet to the easterly line of Lot 5 said Richmond 3rd Addition and said line there terminating.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 13-04-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD 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 City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion or
hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also
determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply
with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). The specific modifications include:
a. Increased residential density from 30 units per acre to 36.5 units per acre
b. Increased Floor Area Ratio from 0.70 to 0.90
c. Increased building height to allow a portion of the South Building to be 43 feet tall
d. Increased building height to allow a portion of the North Building to be 43 feet tall
e. Reduced front yard (south side) to 25 feet
f. Reduced side yard (east side) to 19 feet for the North Building
g. Reduced side yard (east side) to 24 feet for the South Building
h. Reduced side yard (west side) to 18 feet for the North Building
i. Reduced side yard (west side) to 14 feet for the South Building
j. Allowing two principal buildings on a lot
4. The contents of Planning Case File 13-04-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings
set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval is subject to City Council approval of the rezoning of the subject property
to R-4 Multiple Family residence district and the effective date of the ordinance.
2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official
Exhibits.
3. An easement for purposes of maintaining a public sidewalk along Cedar Lake Road shall
be granted to the City for the proposed public sidewalk that is on private property. Said
easement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
4. An agreement that provides public access to the playground and City review and
approval of the proposed amenities and the maintenance plan for the playground. Said
agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
5. The property owner shall ensure that the playground is inspected and maintained in
conformance manufacturer and industry guidelines.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits:
a. The developer shall sign the City’s Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
b. Final plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities and construction documents conform to the
requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and City policies.
c. Building material samples and colors must be submitted to the City for review.
d. The developer shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk installation,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, landscaping, and designed outdoor
recreation area features.
e. The City and developer shall enter into a development agreement.
7. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding building demolition), the
following conditions shall be met:
a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property
owner.
c. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utility, and City representatives.
d. All necessary permits must be obtained.
8. The developer 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 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhood
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public
street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the
Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure
motorist and pedestrian safety.
9. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall
be completed:
a. Public sidewalks, playground, landscaping, and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with the Official Exhibits.
b. The applicant shall submit proof that an easement for the City to maintain a public
sidewalk on private property along Cedar Lake Road has been filed with Hennepin
County.
c. The applicant shall submit proof to the City that an agreement providing for public
access to the privately-owned and privately-maintained playground has been recorded
with Hennepin County.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
10. 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.
11. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final PUD. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES (EXCERPT)
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 17, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Charlie Dixon (youth member), Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl
Robertson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hunt, Ryan Kelley, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
A. Eliot Park Apartments Final Plat and Final PUD
Location: 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Rd.
Applicant: Hunt Associates
Case No: 13-03-S, 13-04-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that there are
changes to the plat since the Commission reviewed the Preliminary Plat in March.
Commissioner Carper spoke about a community gardening presentation he
attended recently. He asked if the City and developers have considered providing
gardening plots to residents within a Designed Recreational Outdoor Area
(DORA).
Mr. Walther responded that it is not required and gardening is allowed in every
residential district. The City has been relatively proactive in providing
community garden plots to the public on public property. He added that the
City’s environmental coordinator, Jim Vaughan, has provided technical assistance
to several businesses and non-profits that have also provided community garden
plots in St. Louis Park. He said it is not proposed as part of Eliot Park
Apartments plan but it would be allowed.
Commissioner Morris said he would like the Commission to discuss DORA at a
study session, including the discussion of community gardening.
Commissioner Person asked about the trail dedication fee.
Mr. Walther responded that that fee is required to be used only for new trail
improvements.
Commissioner Carper asked Dan Hunt, Hunt Associates, if he had looked at
devoting any areas for gardening as part of DORA for the project.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd
Mr. Hunt said they had not considered it but said he was intrigued by the idea. He
said there might be areas to do it and the site is going to be sprinkled. He said
they will look at the possibility.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Final
Planned Unit Development for 6800 Cedar Lake Road and to allow modifications
to the front and side yards, floor area ratio, height and density; and to recommend
approval of the Final Plat of Eliot Park Apartments. Commissioner Johnston-
Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
23' 10"22' 0"25' 6"38' 0"22' 0"31' 0"31' 0"20' 0"20' 0"60' 0"60' 0"25' 2"25' 0"62' 0"96' 8"62' 0"61' 0"61' 0"82' 0"57' 8"56' 0"6' 0"NOTE:ALL TRASH TO BE LOCATED BELOW RADE IN ARA E6' 0"6' 0"TOTAL SITE AREA 204,300 SFAPARTMENT SITE 164,551 SFBUILDIN FOOTPRINT AREA 53,680 SFSIDEWALKS AND STOOPS 23,156 SFPARKIN AND DRIVES 12,092 SFTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 88,928 SF (54 )OPEN SPACE 75,623 SF ROSS BUILDIN AREA 146,680 SF ROSS AREA ABOVE RADE 93,005 SFFLOOR AREA RATIO .89 ROUND FLOOR AREA RATIO .33BUILDIN HEI HTBUILDIN A 37' 2"BUILDIN B 38' 6"SIN LE FAMILY LOTS 21,549 SF(2 LOTS) 4 DU ACREEAST OF HAMPSHIRE SITE 5,287 SFPARKIN AND DRIVES 2,360 SF (45 )TOTAL NUMBER OF APARTMENT DWELLIN UNITS 138TOTAL NUMBER OF SIN LE FAMILY HOME LOTS 2TOTAL UNITS 140 UNITS 29.9 DU ACRETOTAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 187 BEDROOMSTOTAL NUMBER OF APARTMENT PARKIN STALLS 198 STALLS(NO ON STREET STALLS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED)TOTAL NUMBER OF ENCLOSED APARTMENT STALLS 150 (PLUS 28 TANDEM)TOTAL NUMBER OF SURFACE APARTMENT STALLS 20TOTAL NUMBER OF ENCLOSED BIKE STALLS 138TOTAL NUMBER OF SURFACE BIKE STALLS 24OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA 21,817 SF (13.7 )SITE TO BE RE ONED WITH A P.U.D.SIN LE FAMILY LOTS RE ONED TO R2 (NO BUILDIN S PROPOSED)FRONT SETBACK 25' REQUIREDSIDE SETBACK (INTERIOR) 5 AND 7' REQUIREDSIDE SETBACK (CORNER) 15' REQUIREDREAR SETBACK 25' REQUIREDAPARTMENT SITE RE ONED TO R4FRONT SETBACK 17' PROPOSED 30' REQUIRED (NO REQUIREMENT PUD)SIDE SETBACK59' PROPOSED 15' OR 12 HEI HT (19' 3"') REQUIRED (NONE PUD)REAR SETBACK NOT APPLICABLE 25' REQUIRED (NO REQUIREMENT PUD)SETBACK FROM INTERNAL CURB LINE 20' PROPOSED 15' REQUIRED (NO REQUIREMENT PUD)MINIMUM OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA 21,817 SF (13.7 ) 12 REQUIRED ROUND FLOOR AREA RATIO .33 PROPOSED .37 REQUIRED WITH PUD (.35)FLOOR AREA RATIO .92 PROPOSED PUD LIMITED BY HEI HT, DENSITY, FAR (.7 )DENSITY 29.9 DU ACRE 33 DU ACRE WITH PUD (30 DU ACRE 10 )6' 0"6' 0"97' 8"64' 0"64' 0"97' 8"81' 0"64' 8"23' 0"69' 2"103' 0"21' 0"80' 1"46' 5"17' 10"29' 1"5' 0"6' 0"AS100SITE PLAN12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 1 SITE PLANAS100City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 19
NORTH SOUTH BUILDING BUILDINGTANDEM 12 16STANDARD 69 73HANDICAP 4 4TOTAL 85 93TOTAL 68 708'-6"8'-6"8'-6"9'-4"156'-8"225'-8"61'-0"38'-0"107'-8"38'-0"29'-10"38'-0"27'-8"81'-8"9'-0"8'-6"8'-6"9'-0"9'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"22'-0"22'-0"18'-0"60'-0"22'-0"18'-0"18'-0"18'-0"15'-0"8'-6"8'-0"8'-6"8'-6"30'-4"8'-2"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"15'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"18'-0"18'-0"19'-0"16'-2516"8'-6"9'-0"19'-0"22'-0"12'-0"10'-0"14'-8"6'-0"23'-8"14'-8"5'-8"19'-8"8'-8"5'-0"9'-0"165'-0"27'-8"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"6'-0"12'-8"12'-0"12'-0"11'-8"12'-0"6'-0"12'-0"12'-0"5'-0"8'-6"8'-6"4'-0"19'-0"12'-0"7'-0"12'-0"27'-8"14'-4"16'-4"5'-0"8'-8"16'-0"29'-8"18'-0"BIKE LOOPS TYP.8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"5'-0"9'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-0"18'-0"22'-0"19'-0"8'-0"18'-3"8'-6"8'-6"9'-4"9'-4"9'-4"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"18'-0"8'-0"8'-6"8'-0"18'-0"18'-0"8'-6"22'-0"2A200 3A200 1A200 4A200 15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES1. ---A100GARAGE LEVEL PLAN,NORTH BUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN, NORTH BUILDINGA100City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 20
62'-0"17'-8"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"22'-0"8'-6"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"22'-0"8'-10"8'-6"EL 908.0'EL 914.33'21'-0"39'-4"12'-0"12'-0"11'-8"23'-3316"5'-10"9'-1078"29'-6"24'-6"10'-0"24'-6"16'-0"8'-8"26'-378"6'-1"6'-238"8'-6"12'-0116"7'-0"12'-0"19'-0"3'-111516"14'-8"9'-0"19'-71116"9'-8516"4'-0"8'-6"9'-6"16'-0"18'-0"2A200 3A200 1A200 4A200 FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES1. ---A100-AGARAGE LEVEL PLAN,SOUTH BUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL PLAN, SOUTH BUILDINGA100-ACity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 21
67'-0"67'-0"27'-0"37'-8"27'-0"38'-0"21'-0"21'-0"61'-0"61'-0"13'-8"156'-8"43'-4"27'-8"66'-4"5'-8"183'-8"69'-8"21'-8"38'-0"16'-4"11'-0"165'-0"126'-4"27'-8"ONE BEDROOM15TWO BEDROOM09THREE BEDROOM 00TOTAL242A200 3A200 1A200 4A200 15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"GENERAL NOTES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDEFACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURALAND STRUCTURAL DETAILS.3. INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONSSHALL BE MAINTAINED.4. ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTSSHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSION IS NOT CLEAR, NOT GIVEN, OR PRESENTSA CONFLICT. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.6. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.7. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT FLOORS AND WALLS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. INSTALL ALL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS TO MEET MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFLICT WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE SEALED JOINTS AT MOISTURE CONTROL MEMBRANE.10. PROTECT MATERIALS ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FROM MOISTURE ANDOTHER DAMAGE.11. INSULATE GAPS AT WOOD FRAMING BETWEEN WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHERMATERIALS WITH RIGID INSULATION.12. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WOOD.13. PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK,SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ONMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.14. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, METERS,DUCTWORK, ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEENARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND M.E. P. SUBCONTRACTORS.8.15. CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEWAND PER DRAWINGS, INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. PROVIDERATED ENCLOSURE WHERE FIXTURES OR EQUIPMENT PENETRATES THEASSEMBLY.16. PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANYDISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED.17. FIRE-BLOCK ALL CONCEALED WALL SPACES, INCLUDING 10'-0" VERTICALLY ANDHORIZONTALLY.18. DO NOT PENETRATE STAIR OR ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE UNLESS SERVING STAIR ORELEVATOR.19. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CHANGE AT DOORS OR MATERIAL TRANSITIONS NOT TOEXCEED 12".20. SEE SHEET A001 FOR ALL WALL TYPES.A101FIRST FLOOR PLAN,NORTH BUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN, NORTH BUILDINGA101City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 22
ONE BEDROOM17TWO BEDROOM08THREE BEDROOM 01TOTAL26GENERAL NOTES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDEFACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURALAND STRUCTURAL DETAILS.3. INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONSSHALL BE MAINTAINED.4. ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTSSHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSION IS NOT CLEAR, NOT GIVEN, OR PRESENTSA CONFLICT. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.6. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.7. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT FLOORS AND WALLS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. INSTALL ALL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS TO MEET MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFLICT WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE SEALED JOINTS AT MOISTURE CONTROL MEMBRANE.10. PROTECT MATERIALS ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FROM MOISTURE ANDOTHER DAMAGE.11. INSULATE GAPS AT WOOD FRAMING BETWEEN WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHERMATERIALS WITH RIGID INSULATION.12. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WOOD.13. PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK,SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ONMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.14. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, METERS,DUCTWORK, ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEENARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND M.E. P. SUBCONTRACTORS.8.15. CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEWAND PER DRAWINGS, INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. PROVIDERATED ENCLOSURE WHERE FIXTURES OR EQUIPMENT PENETRATES THEASSEMBLY.16. PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANYDISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED.17. FIRE-BLOCK ALL CONCEALED WALL SPACES, INCLUDING 10'-0" VERTICALLY ANDHORIZONTALLY.18. DO NOT PENETRATE STAIR OR ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE UNLESS SERVING STAIR ORELEVATOR.19. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CHANGE AT DOORS OR MATERIAL TRANSITIONS NOT TOEXCEED 12".20. SEE SHEET A001 FOR ALL WALL TYPES.A101 AFIRST FLOOR, SOUTHBUILDIN 12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1 8" 1' 0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN, SOUTH BUILDIN A101 ACity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 23
2A200 3A200 1A200 4A200 15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"ONE BEDROOM16TWO BEDROOM09THREE BEDROOM 00TOTAL2567'-0"67'-0"27'-0"37'-8"27'-0"38'-0"21'-0"21'-0"61'-0"61'-0"13'-8"156'-8"43'-4"27'-8"66'-4"5'-8"183'-8"69'-8"21'-8"38'-0"16'-4"11'-0"165'-0"126'-4"27'-8"GENERAL NOTES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDEFACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURALAND STRUCTURAL DETAILS.3. INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONSSHALL BE MAINTAINED.4. ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTSSHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSION IS NOT CLEAR, NOT GIVEN, OR PRESENTSA CONFLICT. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.6. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.7. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT FLOORS AND WALLS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. INSTALL ALL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS TO MEET MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFLICT WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE SEALED JOINTS AT MOISTURE CONTROL MEMBRANE.10. PROTECT MATERIALS ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FROM MOISTURE ANDOTHER DAMAGE.11. INSULATE GAPS AT WOOD FRAMING BETWEEN WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHERMATERIALS WITH RIGID INSULATION.12. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WOOD.13. PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK,SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ONMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.14. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, METERS,DUCTWORK, ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEENARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND M.E. P. SUBCONTRACTORS.8.15. CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEWAND PER DRAWINGS, INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. PROVIDERATED ENCLOSURE WHERE FIXTURES OR EQUIPMENT PENETRATES THEASSEMBLY.16. PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANYDISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED.17. FIRE-BLOCK ALL CONCEALED WALL SPACES, INCLUDING 10'-0" VERTICALLY ANDHORIZONTALLY.18. DO NOT PENETRATE STAIR OR ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE UNLESS SERVING STAIR ORELEVATOR.19. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CHANGE AT DOORS OR MATERIAL TRANSITIONS NOT TOEXCEED 12".20. SEE SHEET A001 FOR ALL WALL TYPES.A102TYPICAL FLOORPLAN, NORTHBUILDIN 12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 551141 TYPICAL FLOOR PLANA102City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 24
ONE BEDROOM18TWO BEDROOM08THREE BEDROOM 01TOTAL27GENERAL NOTES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDEFACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURALAND STRUCTURAL DETAILS.3. INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONSSHALL BE MAINTAINED.4. ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTSSHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSION IS NOT CLEAR, NOT GIVEN, OR PRESENTSA CONFLICT. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.6. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.7. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT FLOORS AND WALLS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. INSTALL ALL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS TO MEET MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFLICT WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE SEALED JOINTS AT MOISTURE CONTROL MEMBRANE.10. PROTECT MATERIALS ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FROM MOISTURE ANDOTHER DAMAGE.11. INSULATE GAPS AT WOOD FRAMING BETWEEN WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHERMATERIALS WITH RIGID INSULATION.12. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WOOD.13. PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK,SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ONMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.14. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, METERS,DUCTWORK, ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEENARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND M.E. P. SUBCONTRACTORS.8.15. CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEWAND PER DRAWINGS, INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. PROVIDERATED ENCLOSURE WHERE FIXTURES OR EQUIPMENT PENETRATES THEASSEMBLY.16. PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANYDISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED.17. FIRE-BLOCK ALL CONCEALED WALL SPACES, INCLUDING 10'-0" VERTICALLY ANDHORIZONTALLY.18. DO NOT PENETRATE STAIR OR ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE UNLESS SERVING STAIR ORELEVATOR.19. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CHANGE AT DOORS OR MATERIAL TRANSITIONS NOT TOEXCEED 12".20. SEE SHEET A001 FOR ALL WALL TYPES.A102-ASECOND FLOOR PLAN,SOUTH BUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN, SOUTH BUILDINGA102-ACity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 25
2A200 3A200 1A200 4A200 15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"15'-4"30'-4"15'-4"ONE BEDROOM11TWO BEDROOM04THREE BEDROOM 02TOTAL1767'-0"67'-0"27'-0"37'-8"27'-0"38'-0"21'-0"21'-0"102'-1"27'-8"66'-4"5'-8"183'-8"69'-8"21'-8"38'-0"16'-4"11'-0"165'-0"126'-4"27'-8"GENERAL NOTES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDEFACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURALAND STRUCTURAL DETAILS.3. INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONSSHALL BE MAINTAINED.4. ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTSSHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSION IS NOT CLEAR, NOT GIVEN, OR PRESENTSA CONFLICT. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.6. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.7. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT FLOORS AND WALLS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. INSTALL ALL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS TO MEET MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFLICT WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE SEALED JOINTS AT MOISTURE CONTROL MEMBRANE.10. PROTECT MATERIALS ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FROM MOISTURE ANDOTHER DAMAGE.11. INSULATE GAPS AT WOOD FRAMING BETWEEN WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHERMATERIALS WITH RIGID INSULATION.12. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WOOD.13. PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK,SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ONMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.14. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, METERS,DUCTWORK, ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEENARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND M.E. P. SUBCONTRACTORS.8.15. CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEWAND PER DRAWINGS, INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. PROVIDERATED ENCLOSURE WHERE FIXTURES OR EQUIPMENT PENETRATES THEASSEMBLY.16. PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANYDISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED.17. FIRE-BLOCK ALL CONCEALED WALL SPACES, INCLUDING 10'-0" VERTICALLY ANDHORIZONTALLY.18. DO NOT PENETRATE STAIR OR ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE UNLESS SERVING STAIR ORELEVATOR.19. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CHANGE AT DOORS OR MATERIAL TRANSITIONS NOT TOEXCEED 12".20. SEE SHEET A001 FOR ALL WALL TYPES.A103THIRD FLOOR PLAN,NORTH BUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN, NORTH BUILDINGA103City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 26
ONE BEDROOM12TWO BEDROOM05THREE BEDROOM 02TOTAL19GENERAL NOTES1. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE FACE OF SHEATHING OR OUTSIDEFACE OF MASONRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. VERIFY SLAB EDGE LOCATIONS, BRICK AND MASONRY FACE WITH ARCHITECTURALAND STRUCTURAL DETAILS.3. INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF WALLS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. WHERE CLEAR DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATED, THESE DIMENSIONSSHALL BE MAINTAINED.4. ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS OF WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHER COMPONENTSSHALL BE VERIFIED WITH ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF SUPPLIED COMPONENTS.5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSION IS NOT CLEAR, NOT GIVEN, OR PRESENTSA CONFLICT. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.6. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. IF DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.7. PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS AT FLOORS AND WALLS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. INSTALL ALL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS TO MEET MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS. IF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS CONFLICT WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.9. PROVIDE SEALED JOINTS AT MOISTURE CONTROL MEMBRANE.10. PROTECT MATERIALS ON-SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION FROM MOISTURE ANDOTHER DAMAGE.11. INSULATE GAPS AT WOOD FRAMING BETWEEN WINDOWS, DOORS AND OTHERMATERIALS WITH RIGID INSULATION.12. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WOOD.13. PROVIDE WOOD BLOCKING BEHIND ALL WALL HUNG CASEWORK, MILLWORK,SHELVING, FIXTURES AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTED OR AS NECESSARY BASED ONMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.14. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBINGSUBCONTRACTORS AS TO LOCATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, METERS,DUCTWORK, ETC. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEENARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND M.E. P. SUBCONTRACTORS.8.15. CONSTRUCT RATED ASSEMBLIES AT ALL LOCATIONS INDICATED IN CODE REVIEWAND PER DRAWINGS, INCLUDING ALL CEILING AND FLOOR ASSEMBLIES. PROVIDERATED ENCLOSURE WHERE FIXTURES OR EQUIPMENT PENETRATES THEASSEMBLY.16. PROVIDE FIRE STOPPING AR ALL PENETRATIONS OF RATED ASSEMBLIES. ANYDISTURBANCE OF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE REPAIRED.17. FIRE-BLOCK ALL CONCEALED WALL SPACES, INCLUDING 10'-0" VERTICALLY ANDHORIZONTALLY.18. DO NOT PENETRATE STAIR OR ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE UNLESS SERVING STAIR ORELEVATOR.19. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CHANGE AT DOORS OR MATERIAL TRANSITIONS NOT TOEXCEED 12".20. SEE SHEET A001 FOR ALL WALL TYPES.A103 ATHIRD FLOOR PLAN,SOUTH BUILDIN 12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1 8" 1' 0"1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN, SOUTH BUILDIN A103 ACity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 27
PARAPETROOF HATCHPARAPETA104ROOF PLAN, NORTHBUILDIN 12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1 8" 1' 0"1 ROOF PLAN, NORTH BUILDIN A104City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 28
PARAPETROOF HATCHPARAPETA104 AROOF PLAN, SOUTHBUILDIN 12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1 8" 1' 0"1 ROOF PLAN, SOUTH BUILDIN A104 ACity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 29
MATERIAL INDEXFACE BRICK(COLOR TBD)DECORATIVE CMUSTONE SILLCEMENT BOARD SIDING(RANDOM WIDTHS, COLOR TBD)CEMENT BOARD PANEL SIDING #1(COLOR TBD)CEMENT BOARD PANEL SIDING #2(COLOR TBD)PREFINISHED METAL PANEL(VERTICAL CORR.- EXPOSED FASTENERS W 2" TRIM)PREFINISHED METAL CORNICEPREFINISHED METAL FLASHINGVINYL WINDOWSALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMPREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILINGTHIN BRICK, TO MATCH FACE BRICKMECHANICAL LOUVERMETAL SCREENED ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT123456789101112131415A200ELEVATIONS, NORTHBUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION, NORTH BUILDINGA200SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION, NORTH BUILDINGA200SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION, NORTH BUILDINGA200 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION, NORTH BUILDINGA200CLASS IBRICK STONE: 28 LASS 22 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 60%CLASS IBRICK STONE: 31 LASS20 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 61%CLASS IBRICK STONE: 28 LASS: 24 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 62%CLASS IBRICK STONE: 38 LASS: 19 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 67%City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 30
MATERIAL INDEXFACE BRICK(COLOR TBD)DECORATIVE CMUSTONE SILLCEMENT BOARD SIDING(RANDOM WIDTHS, COLOR TBD)CEMENT BOARD PANEL SIDING #1(COLOR TBD)CEMENT BOARD PANEL SIDING #2(COLOR TBD)PREFINISHED METAL PANEL(VERTICAL CORR.- EXPOSED FASTENERS W 2" TRIM)PREFINISHED METAL CORNICEPREFINISHED METAL FLASHINGVINYL WINDOWSALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMPREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILINGTHIN BRICK, TO MATCH FACE BRICKMECHANICAL LOUVERMETAL SCREENED ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT123456789101112131415ROOF BEARING130'-8 7/8"T.O. SUBFLR. SECOND FLOOR110'-11 7/8"T.O. FIRST FLOOR TOPPING100'-0"GARAGE LEVEL89'-4"T.O. SUBFLR. THIRD FLOOR121'-11 3/4"12'-1"10'-978"10'-978"9'-118"9'-118"9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"11'-1"1'-0"34'-7"8'-6"ROOF BEARING130'-8 7/8"T.O. SUBFLR. SECOND FLOOR110'-11 7/8"T.O. FIRST FLOOR TOPPING100'-0"GARAGE LEVEL89'-4"T.O. SUBFLR. THIRD FLOOR121'-11 3/4"12'-1"10'-978"10'-978"9'-118"9'-118"9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"11'-1"1'-0"42'-4"ROOF BEARING130'-8 7/8"T.O. SUBFLR. SECOND FLOOR110'-11 7/8"T.O. FIRST FLOOR TOPPING100'-0"GARAGE LEVEL89'-4"T.O. SUBFLR. THIRD FLOOR121'-11 3/4"12'-1"10'-978"10'-978"9'-118"9'-118"9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"11'-1"1'-0"39'-0"A200-AELEVATIONS, SOUTHBUILDING12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 1 SOUTH ELEVATION, SOUTH BUILDINGA200-A 2 WEST ELEVATION, SOUTH BUILDINGA200-A 3 NORTH ELEVATION, SOUTH BUILDINGA200-A 4 EAST ELEVATION, SOUTH BUILDINGA200-ACLASS IBRICK STONE: 37 LASS 23 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 67%CLASS IBRICK STONE: 33 LASS 19 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 62%CLASS IBRICK STONE: 38 LASS:19 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 67%CLASS IBRICK STONE: 34 LASS:20 CEMENT BOARDSIDIN 'CREDIT': 10 TOTAL PCT: 64%City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 31
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the followingdescribed property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:Lots 4 to 28 inclusive, Richmond 3rd Addition, including vacated 22nd Street and that part of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows:Commencing at a point on East line of West Half of Northeast Quarter, distant 534 feet South from Northeast corner thereof; thence West 157.5 feetto Northeast corner of Lot 19, Richmond 3rd Addition; thence South along said addition to center line of Cedar Lake Road; thence Northeasterly alongsame to East line of West Half of Northeast Quarter; thence North along said East line to point of beginning.And, that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 117, Range 21, being parts of Hampshire Avenue South, originally dedicated asCleveland Ave.; Cedar Lake Road, originally dedicated as Minnetonka Ave.; Lots 11 and 12, Block 4 and the vacated alley in said Block 4, “SupremePark First Division, Village of St. Louis Park”, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:Commencing at a point in the center line of Cedar Lake Road where the East line of the West Half of said Northeast Quarter intersects said centerline; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Cedar Lake Road to a point 75 feet Northeasterly from the point of intersection of said East lineof said West Half of Northeast Quarter with the center of said Cedar Lake Road; thence North and parallel with the said East line of said West Half ofNortheast Quarter of said Section 8 to the center line of the said vacated alley; thence Southwest parallel with the North line of said Cedar Lake Road75 feet more or less to the East line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of said West Half of NortheastQuarter to the point of beginning.(The registered portion of which is as follows:)Lots 25 and 27 in Richmond 3rd Addition,Lot 28, Richmond 3rd Addition,Lot 10, Richmond 3rd Addition.Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever thedrainage and utitliy easements and the public ways as shown on this plat.In witness whereof said Eliot Park Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this______ day of ____________________, 201_____.ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC____________________________ Chief ManagerDaniel HuntState of ________________County of ______________The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ____________________, 201_____ by Daniel Hunt, Chief Mangager of EliotPark Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company._________________________________________(Signature)_________________________________________(Printed Name)Notary Public ____________________ County______________My Commission Expires January 31, 201_____SURVEYORS CERTIFICATIONI, Richard L. Licht, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the Stateof Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat;that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined inMinnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown andlabeled on this plat.Dated this ______ day of __________________, 201______________________________________Richard L. Licht, Licensed Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 26724State of MinnesotaCounty of HennepinThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of __________________, 20_____ by Richard L. Licht, a Licensed LandSurveyor._________________________________________(Signature)_________________________________________(Printed Name)Notary Public Hennepin County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires January 31, 201_____ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTAThis plat of ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS was approved and accepted by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof heldthis ______ day of _________________, 201_____. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportationand the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments andrecommendations, as provided by Minn. Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTABy __________________________________, Mayor By ______________________________, ClerkTAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that taxes payable in 201______ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this ________ day of____________________, 201_____.Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County AuditorBy ________________________________, DeputySURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, MinnesotaPursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969) this plat has been approved this ________ day of ______________________, 201_____.William P. Brown, Hennepin County SurveyorBy _________________________________REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that the within plat of ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS was filed in this office this ___day of ____________, 201_____ , at __ o'clock __.m.Martin McCormick, Registrar of TitlesBy ________________________________ DeputyCOUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that the within plat of ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS was recorded in this office this ________ day of _____________________, 201_____,at ________o'clock __M.Martin McCormick, County RecorderBy ________________________________ DeputyCity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 32
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 33
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 34
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 35
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 36
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 37
(18) LILAC 'MISS KIM'(13) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL'(3) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW'(6) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND'(6) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND'(7) JUNIPER 'DAUBS FROSTED'(11) JUNIPER 'DAUBS FROSTED'(15) LITTLE BLUESTEM 'BLUE HEAVEN'(16) DAYLILY 'SOUTH SEAS'(6) RUDBECKIA 'GOLDSTURM'(11) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER'(12) ASTER 'WINSTON CHURCHILL'(7) ASTILBE 'WHITE GLORIA'(10) ASTILBE 'WHITE GLORIA'(1) MAGNOLIA 'ROYAL STAR'(1) MAGNOLIA 'ROYAL STAR'(3) CRABAPPLE 'CORALBURST'(1) WEIGELA 'WINE & ROSES'(3) WEIGELA 'WINE & ROSES'(7) JUNIPER 'BLUE STAR'(10) LITTLE BLUESTEM 'BLUE HEAVEN'(9) ARONIA 'IROQUOIS BEAUTY'(20) CATMINT 'WALKERSLOW'(18) CATMINT 'WALKERSLOW'(17) DAYLILY 'ICE CARNIVAL'(42) DAYLILY 'ICE CARNIVAL'(25) SALVIA 'EAST FRIESSLAND'(9) HONEYLOCUST 'SHADEMASTER'(5) SPRUCE 'BLACK HILLS'(6) RIVER BIRCH 'CULLY'(3) AUSTRIAN PINE(3) SERVICEBERRY 'AUT BRILL'(8) SWISS STONE PINE(7) BIRCH 'ROYAL FROST'(16) BIRCH 'DAKOTA PINNACLE'SEE ENLARGED PLANFOR COURTYARD PLANTINGS.SEE ENLARGED PLANFOR COURTYARD PLANTINGS.(13) TAUNTON YEW(11) TAUNTON YEW(3) DWF KOREANLILAC(6) DWF KOREAN LILAC(6) SHRUB ROSE 'CAREFREECELEBRATION'(21) DAYLILY 'BAJA RED'(13) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER'(23) COLUMBINE 'YELLOW SWAN'(10) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER'(29) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER'(17) COLUMBINE 'YELLOW SWAN'(15) DAYLILY 'BELLA LUGOSI'(13) PRAIRIE DROPSEED(26) LILY 'TINY GHOST'(20) DESCHAMPSIA 'SCHOTTLAND'(11) DESCHAMPSIA 'SCHOTTLAND'(10) SALVIA 'MAY NIGHT' (6) SHRUB ROSE 'CHAMPLAIN'(5) ARBORVITAE 'MR BOWLING BALL'(5) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND'(26) MISCANTHUS 'FLAME' (50) JUNIPER 'BROADMOOR' (80) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER' (68) YARROW 'MOONSHINE' (56) BRUNNERA(15) MOOR GRASS 'SKYRACER'(16) ECHINACEA 'MAGNUS'(10) MOOR GRASS 'SKYRACER'(38) ECHINACEA 'MAGNUS'(9) TAUNTON YEW(10) DWF KOREAN LILAC(26) DAYLILY 'BELLA LUGOSI'(12) COLUMBINE 'YELLOW SWAN'(11) DAYLILY 'BAJA RED'(19) DAYLILY 'BAJA RED'(14) PRAIRIE DROPSEED(1) MAGNOLIA 'JANE'(2) MAGNOLIA 'JANE'(2) TAUNTON YEW(6) SHRUB ROSE 'CAREFREECELEBRATION'(11) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER'(12) MISCANTHUS 'FLAME'(23) DESCHAMPSIA 'SCHOTTLAND'(9) SALVIA 'MAY NIGHT'(5) DWF KOREAN LILAC(16) TAUNTON YEW(2) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND'(2) SERVICEBERRY 'AUT BRILL'(13) DAYLILY 'BAJA RED'(22) FEATHER REED GRASS'KARL FOERSTER'(6) SHRUB ROSE 'KNOCK OUT'(4) SHRUB ROSE 'KNOCK OUT'(6) SHRUB ROSE 'KNOCK OUT'(6) JUNIPER 'BLUE STAR'(2) SERVICEBERRY 'AUT BRILL'(9) LITTLE BLUESTEM 'BLUEHEAVEN'(11) DOGWOOD 'RED GNOME'(20) ASTER 'WINSTONCHURCHILL'(12) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL'(14) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND'(2) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW'(14) DAYLILY 'SOUTH SEAS'(28) RUDBECKIA 'GOLDSTURM'(8) ASTILBE 'WHITE GLORIA'(12) DAYLILY 'ICE CARNIVAL'(27) SALVIA 'EAST FRIESSLAND'(14) ASTER 'WINSTON CHURCHILL'(23) DAYLILY 'ICE CARNIVAL'(12) ASTER 'WINSTON CHURCHILL'(32) CATMINT 'WALKERSLOW'(4) CRABAPPLE 'CORALBURST'(9) WEIGELA 'WINE & ROSES'(12) TAUNTON YEW(5) LILAC 'MISS KIM'(9) TAUNTON YEW(3) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW' (6) SHRUB ROSE 'CHAMPLAIN'(26) MISCANTHUS 'FLAME'(6) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND'(1) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW'(1) MAGNOLIA 'ROYAL STAR'(1) MAGNOLIA 'ROYAL STAR'(10) ELM 'ACCOLADE'(8) LILAC 'MISS KIM'(22) NINEBARK 'SUMMER WINE'(8) ARROWWOOD VIB. 'BLUE MUFFIN'(5) LILAC 'MISS KIM'(6) MAPLE 'SIENNA GLEN'(6) SWAMP WHITE OAK(6) WEEPING WILLOW 'CASCADE'(17) RIVER BIRCH 'CULLY'(4) PAPER BIRCH 'ROYAL FROST'(9) TAUNTON YEW(8) SHRUB ROSE 'KNOCK OUT'(7) LILAC 'MISS KIM'(15) ECHINACEA 'MAGNUS'(2) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW'(10) DAYLILY 'BAJA RED'(3) WEEPING WILLOW 'CASCADE'(4) MAPLE 'SIENNA GLEN'NATIVE SHRUBS AROUND POND:RED DOGWOOD 'RED GNOME'NINEBARK 'SUMMER WINE'SERVICEBERRY 'REGENT'BUSH HONEYSUCKLEFRAGRANT SUMAC 'GRO LOW'(31) CATMINT 'WALKERS LOW'(4) TAUNTON YEW(11) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL'(8) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE(8) LITTLE BLUESTEM 'BLUEHEAVEN'(16) CATMINT 'WALKERS LOW'(4) LILAC 'MISS KIM'(3) SERVICEBERRY 'AUT BRILL'(14) JUNIPER 'DAUBS FROSTED'(16) SALVIA 'EAST FRIESSLAND'(19) DAYLILY 'BELLA LUGOSI'(7) JUNIPER 'DAUBS FROSTED' (3) YARROW 'MOONSHINE'(25) LILAC 'PRAIRIE PETITE'(24) FEATHER REED GRASS 'KARL FOERSTER'(24) DAYLILY 'BAJA RED'(24) CATMINT 'WALKERS LOW'(24) YARROW 'MOONSHINE'(24) SALVIA 'EAST FRIESSLAND'NATIVE PERENNIALS AROUND POND:LITTLE BLUESTEM 'BLUE HEAVEN'RUDBECKIA 'GOLDSTURM'SALVIA 'MAY NIGHT'INDIAN GRASS 'SIOUX BLUE'YARROW 'MOONSHINE'(25) DAYLILY 'BELLA LUGOSI'NATIVE SHRUBS AROUND POND:RED DOGWOOD 'RED GNOME'NINEBARK 'SUMMER WINE'SERVICEBERRY 'REGENT'BUSH HONEYSUCKLEFRAGRANT SUMAC 'GRO LOW'NATIVE PERENNIALS AROUND POND:LITTLE BLUESTEM 'BLUE HEAVEN'RUDBECKIA 'GOLDSTURM'SALVIA 'MAY NIGHT'INDIAN GRASS 'SIOUX BLUE'YARROW 'MOONSHINE'(6) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW'(3) SWAMP WHTOAKPLACE 4" MIN.TOPSOIL ANDSOD ALL DISTURBEDAREA.(2) SHRUB ROSE 'CAREFREECELEBRATION'(12) MISCANTHUS 'FLAME'(33) SALVIA 'MAY NIGHT'ELEC. TRANSFORMERELEC. TRANSFORMER(7) HOSTA 'BLUE UMBRELLAS'CONCRETE PAVERS, TYPSEE 5/L200GAS FIREPLACE WITH TIMER SHUT OFFSTACKED LIMESTONE SEAT WALL.(4) GAS GRILLS WITH TIMER SHUT OFF.CONCRETE PAVERS, TYP SEE 5/L200POURED CONC. WALK, TYPPOURED CONC. WALK, TYP26'-9"9'-9"4'-7"(49) JUNIPER 'BLUE STAR'(3) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL'(9) BIRCH 'ROYAL FROST'(20) ASTILBE 'FANAL'(4) HYDRANGEA 'ANNABELLE'(2) HYDRANGEA 'ANNABELLE'(15) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE(15) SPIREA 'TOR'(17) SNOWBERRY 'AMETHYST'(5) RIVER BIRCH 'CULLY'(27) BERGENIA 'WINTERGLOW'(22) DWARF GOATSBEARD(1) SERVICEBERY 'AUT BRILL'(1) SERVICEBERY 'AUT BRILL'(35) ASTILBE 'FANAL'(22) HOSTA 'AUGUST MOON'(10) HOSTA 'AUGUST MOON'(16) PRAIRIE DROPSEED(16) PRAIRIE DROPSEED(10) CIMICIFUGA 'BRUNETTE'(17) FERN 'LADY IN RED'(22) FERN 'LADY IN RED'12-003PK/AH/BGAO/RHPKwww.collagearch.comDATE:ELIOT PARKMARCH 1, 2013DATE:03.01.13I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570ST. LOUIS PARK, MNCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKAPPLICATION SUBMISSIONKEY PLANOWNER: HUNT ASSOCIATESCollage | architectsArchitectPete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114BKBM EngineersCivil EngineerTom Cesare763-843-04205930 Brookllyn Blvd.Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429b.e. landscape designs, llc.Landscape ArchitectBen Erickson705 Raymond Avenue #200St. Paul, Minnesota 55114Scale: 1"= 30'-0"LANDSCAPE PLAN- SEE 3/L-200 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE1Scale: 1"= 10'-0"ENLARGED COURTYARD PLAN (QUANTITIES ON THIS PLAN NOT INCLUDED IN PLANT SCHED.)2Scale:PRELIMINARY PLANT SCHEDULE3Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"RETAINING WALL DETAIL4NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONScale: 1/16" = 1'-0"COURTYARD CONCRETE PAVER STYLES & COLOR5UNILOCK BELPASSOPAVERUNILOCK IL CAMPOOAKWOOD PAVER ASACCENTLIMESTONE RETAINING WALL.MORTARED COURSES. TOPOF WALL TO REMAIN LEVEL.1'-4"CAPHOLD MORTAR AWAYFROM FACE OF WALLHOLD MORTAR AWAYFROM FACE OF WALL6" COMPACTED CLASS5 BASEScale: 1" = 1'-0"COURTYARD SEAT WALL DETAIL6b.e. landscape designs2010 3rd st nempls, mn 55418612-382-0902ben@belanddesigns.comwww.belanddesigns.comCity Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Title: Eliot Park Apartments Rezoning, Final Plat, Final PUD - 6720 & 6800 Cedar Lake Rd Page 38
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: May 20, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Redevelopment
Contract between the City, the EDA, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt Associates) related to
its proposed Eliot Park project.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed
Redevelopment Contract between the City, the EDA, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC to facilitate
the construction of its proposed multi-family residential development on the former Eliot School
property?
SUMMARY: Hunt Associates’ proposed project plans and request for financial assistance in
connection with the redevelopment of 6800 & 6720 Cedar Lake Road (former Eliot School
property) have been presented and discussed at previous study sessions over the past year. The
Redeveloper’s application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance was reviewed at the
February 25th Study Session where it received consensus support. A list of specific business
terms (consistent with the discussion held at the February 25th Study Session) was provided at
the April 22nd study session. Those terms served as the basis for the proposed Redevelopment
Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt Associates and “Redeveloper”). Constructing the
proposed Eliot Park project in conformance with the Eliot Design Guidelines is not
economically feasible without some financial assistance. Hunt Associates is seeking financial
assistance specifically to offset the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the former school
property and meeting the Eliot Design Guidelines.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed Eliot Park project is
conservatively estimated to add $17.7 million to the City’s tax base following completion. As a
result, the project would generate roughly $250,000 in tax increment annually. In order for Eliot
Park to proceed, it is proposed that the EDA provide $1.1 million in pay-as-you-go tax
increment from the recently approved Eliot Park TIF district. Once the TIF Note is satisfied and
the TIF district is decertified the property taxes from Eliot Park will accrue to the benefit of all
the local taxing jurisdictions.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution of Approval
Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
(see related EDA staff report)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Hunt Associates (“Redeveloper”) has a purchase agreement with
Independent School District 283 to acquire 6800 & 6720 Cedar Lake Road (the former Eliot
School property and “subject property”). The firm proposes to raze the existing school building
and construct a $25 million residential development on the site consisting of 138 market rate
apartment units (distributed between two buildings) and two single family homes. The value for
real estate tax purposes of the project is estimated to be, at a minimum, $17.7 million when
completed. Both apartment buildings would be staggered in height with two and three stories so
as to blend into the surrounding single family neighborhood and would feature structured
underground parking. The proposed single family home lots at the north end of the site would be
sold to a different development group for construction. The proposed Eliot Park site plan also
includes a private road with parking spaces; a stormwater pond; landscaping; sidewalks; and
children’s playground.
Project Schedule
Hunt Associates hopes to begin construction on Eliot Park this year. However, it may be some
time before its financing is fully in place. Therefore it may be next summer before it is able to
commence construction. To accommodate this contingency the proposed Redevelopment
Contract allows the Redeveloper to commence construction by July 1, 2014 and substantially
complete both the apartment buildings and single family homes by December 1, 2015.
Property Value and Taxes
Currently, the subject property is tax exempt and is therefore not generating any property tax
revenue. With the transfer of the school property to the Redeveloper the property becomes
taxable. The purchase price of the subject property is $2,075,000 (and that is the base market
value of the property within the TIF district).
The estimated market value of the property upon redevelopment is estimated at approximately
$17.7 million. It should be noted that the value of the project could be much higher once it is
assessed for tax purposes. This is a conservative value utilized only for estimating the amount of
TIF the project would generate (the value could be as high as $19.3 million).
Request for Financial Assistance
In order to construct Eliot Park, Hunt Associates applied for tax increment assistance from the
EDA to offset a portion of the extraordinary costs of redeveloping the site such as hazardous
waste abatement within the former school building, demolition and constructing Eliot Park in
conformance with the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study / Design Guidelines.
Hunt Associates’ preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor
rate of return (ROR) related to Eliot Park were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers & Associates. The
estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of
redevelopment. It was also concluded that constructing Eliot Park inclusive of the extraordinary
site and building costs noted above was not economically feasible without some financial
assistance from the EDA.
Upon analysis by Ehlers and Staff, and discussion with Hunt Associates, it was determined that
$1.1 million in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward. Providing
assistance makes it possible to construct a high quality housing development on a former tax
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
exempt property. As discussed at previous Study Sessions, this proposed amount is consistent
with other similar-sized multi-family residential developments the EDA has previously assisted.
The EDA’s participation would leverage approximately $25 million in new investment. The
ratio of private to public investment in the project is $23 to $1. As a percentage of total project
cost the requested amount of financial assistance is approximately 4%.
Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property
would be provided to Hunt Associates on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. This means the Redeveloper
must first incur the construction costs with its own funds. The tax increment is then used to
reimburse the developer for certain agreed upon “Public Redevelopment Costs” incurred as part of
the project. This is the preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy. Eliot Park has
met the requirements of a Redevelopment TIF District (25 year TIF District). Under this type of
TIF district, the proposed project would generate the requested $1.1 million in approximately 6.5
years.
The EDA/City Council reviewed Hunt Associates’ TIF application at the February 25th Study
Session. Following discussion there was consensus support for favorably considering the
provision of $1.1 million in PAYGO TIF assistance to the Redeveloper to make the Eliot Park
project financially feasible. As a result, staff was directed to draft a formal Redevelopment
Contract with Hunt Associates.
Subsequent to the above Study Session, Staff determined that the estimated $300,000 cost of
abating the asbestos and lead-based paint within the former school building may qualify for a
Contamination Cleanup Grant through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account
(“TBRA”) Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. Submitting such an application is of
mutual benefit to both the Redeveloper and the EDA. If such a grant were awarded the
Redeveloper could be reimbursed soon after incurring the expense thus saving both principal and
interest on its construction financing. The benefit to the EDA is that the maximum principal
amount of the TIF Note would be decreased by the amount of the grant thus shortening the TIF
payback period. A resolution authorizing submission of the grant application was approved by
the EDA on May 6th.
Resolutions authorizing the establishment of the Eliot Park TIF District were also approved by
the EDA and City Council on May 6th.
Proposed Redevelopment Contract
The EDA has been in discussion with Hunt Associates relative to the redevelopment of the
former Eliot School property for some time. The Redeveloper’s proposed project plans and
request for financial assistance have been presented and/or discussed at several study sessions
over the past year. A list of specific business terms (consistent with the discussion held at the
February 25th Study Session) was provided at the April 22nd study session. Those terms served
as the basis for the proposed Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt
Associates and “Redeveloper”). The Contract for Private Redevelopment specifies the mutual
obligations between the EDA and the Redeveloper as well as the precise terms of the financial
assistance to be provided. The proposed Contract was prepared by the EDA’s legal counsel,
Kennedy & Graven in consultation with staff. The following are key terms of the proposed
Contract.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
1. Redeveloper agrees to promptly abate the hazardous materials within the former Eliot
School building and raze the building on the Redevelopment Property in conformance with
Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
2. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum
Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of
the cost of the environmental remediation, building demolition, site preparation and
underground structured parking (the “Public Redevelopment Costs”). The tax increment
from the Eliot Park Redevelopment TIF District will be payable to Redeveloper in the
form of one or more “TIF Notes”, which would be structured on the following basis:
Issue total: Up to $1,100,000
Type: Pay-as-you-go
Term: Approximately 6.5 years
Interest Rate: 5.5%
Admin Fee: 5%
Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
3. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 93% of
the Apartments are leased; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the
Apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion
for the project. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its actual annualized
cumulative internal rate of return (the “IRR”) from the Apartments, calculated as of the
applicable Lookback Date, along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the
Apartments assuming a sale in the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate
of Completion for the Apartments. The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen
percent (18%) is considered Excess Income. If the EDA determines that there is Excess
Income, the Redeveloper would pay fifty percent (50%) of that amount to the EDA over a
reasonable amount of time from available project cash flow.
4. To finance a portion of the environmental remediation costs related to developing the
Redevelopment Property, the EDA has applied for a $300,000 Contamination Cleanup
Grant (the “Grant”) through the Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account
(“TBRA”) Program administered by the Metropolitan Council. Redeveloper acknowledges
that if such a Grant is awarded, the maximum principal amount of the TIF Note will be
decreased by the amount of the Grant to reflect the benefit of the Grant to the Redeveloper.
5. Redeveloper agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained
by the EDA in connection with the creation of the TIF Plan for the TIF District, and the
negotiation and preparation of the Redevelopment Contract and other incidental agreements
and documents.
6. Before commencing such construction, the Redeveloper must submit plans and
specifications regarding the Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City.
All work on the Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be in accordance with the
approved construction plans and shall comply with all City requirements regarding such
improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the
Improvements in accordance with City procedures.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
7. Redeveloper agrees to undertake the “Minimum Improvements” as shown in the Master
Site Plan. In summary, the Redeveloper agrees to raze the existing school building and
construct two multi-family residential buildings on the site (consisting of a total of 138
market rate apartment units) and two single family homes. Both apartment buildings are
to be staggered in height with two and three stories. Approximately 178 underground
structured parking stalls, as well as a private road with parking spaces are to be provided
within the redevelopment. The proposed single family home lots may be sold to a
different development group; however Redeveloper is ultimately responsible for the
construction of a single family house on each lot. Redeveloper also agrees to construct a
stormwater management pond; sidewalks; landscaping; and children’s playground
including play equipment all in conformance with the PUD. Redeveloper agrees to
execute a sidewalk easement (along Cedar Lake Road) with the City to be recorded with
Hennepin County.
8. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their
approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its
approval. The term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs
by $500,000 or more.
9. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, Redeveloper agrees to abate the hazardous materials
within the former Eliot School building and raze the building on the Redevelopment
Property as soon as possible after it closes on the property. Redeveloper agrees to
commence construction of the apartment buildings by July 1, 2014 and substantially
complete both the apartment buildings and single family homes by December 1, 2015.
10. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. As a condition to
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper will
submit to the EDA a detailed list of the specific energy-efficient/sustainable features or
components implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
11. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA will deliver to the
Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. The construction of the Minimum Improvements
will be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the EDA that all related site
improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in
accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to landscaping that cannot be
completed until seasonal conditions permit.
12. The Redeveloper will at all times either self-manage (upon submission of evidence of
experience in operating multifamily residential developments) or engage a property
management company with substantial experience in operating multifamily residential
developments, subject to approval by the Authority, which approval will not be
unreasonably withheld. The Redeveloper is required to submit evidence of such
management by February 1, 2016.
13. The Redeveloper agrees to submit to the City for review and approval a plan for
maintenance and operation of the children’s playground on the Redevelopment Property
(the “Maintenance Plan”) by December 31, 2015.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
14. Upon execution of the Contract, the Redeveloper and the EDA will execute Assessment
Agreements specifying an assessor’s minimum Market Value for the Apartment Property,
Single-Family Home properties and Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The
amount of the minimum Market Value of the Apartments shall be $17,250,000 as of
January 2, 2016 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction
by such dates. The amount of the minimum Market Value of each Single-Family Home
shall be $250,000 as of January 2, 2016 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding
the status of construction by such dates.
15. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the EDA
agrees to subordinate its rights under the Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage securing
construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a mutually-approved
subordination agreement.
16. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer (except to an affiliate) the Redevelopment Contract or
the Redevelopment Property (except Single-Family Home properties) prior to receiving a
Certificate of Completion without the prior written consent of the EDA, except for
construction mortgage financing and/or permanent financing.
The attached resolution of approval allows for modifications to the Contract that do not alter the
substance of the transaction without bringing the Contract back to the EDA/City Council for
formal approval.
Business Subsidy
The assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Contract does not constitute a “business
subsidy” under the Business Subsidy Act (Section 116J.993 to 116J.995) as it is for housing.
City Council Meeting of May 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: Redevelopment Contract with Eliot Park Apartments, LLC
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT WITH ELIOT PARK APARTMENTS, LLC
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (“Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (“City”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On May 6, 2013, the City and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
(the “Authority”) approved the establishment of the Eliot Park Tax Increment Financing District
(the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) and adopted a tax
increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project, all
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended.
1.02. To facilitate the redevelopment of certain property within the Project and TIF
District, the Authority, the City, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (the “Redeveloper") have
proposed to enter into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”), setting forth the terms
and conditions of redevelopment of certain property within the Project and the TIF District,
including tax increment financing assistance to the Redeveloper.
1.03. The Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the execution thereof and
performance of the City’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Council hereby approves the Contract in substantially the form presented to the
Council, subject to modifications that do not materially alter the substance of the transaction and
that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the Contract by those
officials shall be conclusive evidence of their approval.
2.02. City staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to perform the
City’s obligations under the Contract as a whole or reasonably necessary to implement the Contract,
including without limitation execution of any documents to which the City is a party referenced in
or attached to the Contract.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 20, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest
Clerk