HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/04/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
APRIL 16, 2012
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy 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 March 5, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business
7a. Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments (West End
Redevelopment Phase IIC)
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving a Subordination
Agreement between the EDA, the City and Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC, in
connection with a mortgage loan to be made by Grandbridge to WEA, LLC, the
Redeveloper of the Phase IIC multifamily rental housing development at The West End.
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. Retirement Recognition for Craig Panning, Parks and Recreation Manager of Buildings
and Structures
2b. Caring Youth Day Proclamation
2c. Recognition of Donation from Cargill and the St. Louis Park Lions Club for Tree
Planting
Meeting of April 16, 2012
City Council Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes March 26, 2012
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended Action: Mayor to open Public Hearing, take testimony, and then close
the Public Hearing. Motion to Adopt First Reading of Ordinance establishing the
Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 and to set Second Reading for May 7, 2012.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a major amendment to the Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2), subject to conditions.
8b. Business Park Zoning District
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt the first reading of Ordinance approving the
Business Park Zoning District, and to set the second reading for May 7, 2012.
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 April 16, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution to recognize Parks and Recreation Manager of Buildings and Structures
Craig Panning for his 37 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4b. Approve the 2012 Neighborhood Grants.
4c. Appoint the following commissioners to serve on the Task Force for the St. Louis Park
Outstanding Citizen Award Program for a term to expire based on their respective
commission term or a three year maximum, whichever is reached first:
1. Marjorie Douville, Fire Civil Service Commission
2. James Gainsley, Board of Zoning Appeals
3. Justin Kaufman, Housing Authority
4d. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
4e. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes of March 14, 2012
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 Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is seeking Council direction on sidewalk classifications (Community vs. Neighborhood)
and proposed future sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Based on Council input from February 27th and March 26th, Staff has developed definitions and
classified sidewalks as either “Community” or “Neighborhood” (Exhibit A); has developed
maps showing final proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems (Exhibits B – F); and has
provided information to previously asked Council questions. Staff seeks Council input on:
1. Does Council agree with the “Community” sidewalk classifications proposed by staff
(Exhibit A)? If not, what changes are desired?
2. Does Council agree with the Proposed Future Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway Systems
proposed by staff (Exhibits B, C, and D)? If not, what changes are desired?
BACKGROUND:
History - At the June 6, 2011 Study Session Council reviewed the recently developed pedestrian
and bicycle system plan and directed staff to:
1. prepare a capital improvement program (CIP) to implement this plan
2. provide information used in the past to identify the community vs. neighborhood
sidewalk systems
3. provide information related to taking over maintenance responsibility of the
neighborhood sidewalk system
At the September 12, 2011 Study Session staff presented a detailed draft CIP which utilized a
proactive, high priority approach to build all the trails, community sidewalks, on-street bikeways,
and bridges identified in the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan within 10 years. After
discussing the CIP, sidewalk classifications and maintenance responsibilities, Council requested
staff to:
1. develop a specific process and financing plan to implement the proposed ten year capital
improvement plan
2. focus on trails and sidewalks and to identify possible funding sources outside the City
3. provide further information regarding additional resources to design, deliver, and
maintain the proposed bicycle and pedestrian system expansion
At the February 27, 2012 Study Session, staff provided detailed maps showing the existing and
proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems based on the previous developed plan and CIP.
As a result of the discussion, Council decided to continue with the existing “Community” and
“Neighborhood” sidewalk systems as they exist today. Council then requested staff to:
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
a. prepare a definition for “Community Sidewalks” and one for “Neighborhood Sidewalks”
b. review the prioritization used in developing the CIP to ensure it reflected needs of the
community
c. recommend classifications of proposed sidewalks as “Community” or “Neighborhood”
Staff prepared a written Study Session report for March 26th which provided definitions for
Community and Neighborhood Sidewalks as well as a listing of future expected issues and
policy questions Council would likely have to consider along with a tentative schedule to
implement this plan. Council members requested staff to:
a. include intensity of use in sidewalk definitions
b. consider having shared cost as an option for Neighborhood sidewalks
c. consider various new technologies related to sidewalks to ensure the City is being
creative in materials used
d. determine if the City could create a special service district for a block or neighborhood
for the purpose of snowplowing, similar to an association
Follow Up Actions
1. Staff has revised the definition of Community and Neighborhood sidewalks to reflect
intensity of use:
Community Sidewalks - are intended to link activity nodes in the City and to
provide logical routes through town; they are intended to benefit the larger community
and are generally used more intensely by more pedestrians than neighborhood sidewalks.
They generally create a network to major points of interest such as transit, schools,
shopping areas, parks and other key community destinations in an attempt to make
important connections within the City and to neighboring cities’ systems. Most of these
walks are located along collector and arterial roadways carrying many thousands of
vehicles per day. The planned system attempts to provide pedestrian facilities (sidewalks
and/or trails) at roughly ¼-mile intervals across the community. Community walks link
residents to:
• “activity nodes” with multiple destinations (e.g., the Library / High School / retail
node and the Park Commons / Miracle Mile node)
• Transit nodes
• Regional trails
Neighborhood Sidewalks – these walks generally occur in the established older
neighborhoods within the City and are described as being more of localized interest and
use. They provide accessibility for pedestrians within their immediate area to transit,
schools, parks, commercial areas, and the “Community Walk” network. They also serve
as a safe place for smaller children to play near their home as well as to serve as informal
places for neighbors to meet. Neighborhood walks link residents to:
• Community walks or trails (e.g., Minnetonka Boulevard or W. 26th Street)
• Their neighbors
• Single-destinations (park, school)
2. Staff has reviewed the prioritization used in developing the draft CIP and has determined
it reflects the needs of the community as discussed with Council at the February 27th
Study Session.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
3. Cost sharing on “Neighborhood” sidewalk construction is a viable option and will be
discussed with the Council at a future study session dealing with financial planning.
4. Use of new technologies and materials in sidewalk and trail construction will be proposed
/ used to the extent practicable.
5. The City Attorney has reviewed the use of special service districts in providing for snow
removal services on residential walks and has determined that is not allowed by statute.
Proposed Future Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway Systems
Based on Council input staff has classified proposed sidewalks as “Community” or
“Neighborhood” (see Exhibit A). Please note that while doing this review / classification staff
feels two existing “Neighborhood” sidewalks should be reclassified as “Community” sidewalks.
Proposed “Community” sidewalks are highlighted in pink in Exhibit A while the two existing
“Neighborhood” sidewalks recommended to be reclassified are highlighted in green.
Based on these classifications, staff has developed a map (Exhibit B) which depicts the proposed
future sidewalk system (estimated 2023 completion). In addition, staff has also developed maps
depicting the proposed future trail and bikeway systems (Exhibits C and D). Finally, Exhibits B,
C, and D have been combined into Exhibits E (sidewalks and trails) and F (trails and bikeways)
which depict the proposed future “pedestrian” and “biking” systems.
Summary and Next Steps
Based on past input staff has developed Exhibits A through F for Council consideration. Staff
has also included a map of the current sidewalk system (Exhibit G) showing “Community” and
Neighborhood” sidewalks for reference purposes. Staff seeks Council input at this time in order
to finalize these proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems.
The following tentative process and schedule has been developed to aid in implementing this
plan:
Council reviews and determines sidewalk classifications (Community
vs. Neighborhood) April 16
Council reviews and determines future proposed sidewalk, trail, and
bikeway systems April 16
Council reviews and determines CIP priorities April 23
Council considers remaining policy questions May 14
Council reviews financial and public involvement plans May 29
Staff conducts public involvement / input process June – September
Council adopts proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems along
with, final policies, and the CIP
October
Construction May 2013 – Oct 2025
Based on the process associated with the adoption of the last sidewalk / trail plan and CIP, it is
possible this schedule could be extended for months to a year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Purpose and Goals – staff felt it would be beneficial for Council to have a well-defined purpose
and goals as an aid in discussing and deciding the policy questions associated with this initiative
as well as verify if it is in alignment with the community vision. In that regard, the Active
Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan recommends an approach to developing citywide pedestrian
and bicycling systems, addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their
importance. It suggests a strategy for implementation and identifies preliminary costs for
installation. It looks at how existing areas of concern might be improved and where and how
new walks and trails should be installed.
Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides
local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability."
Goals and Objectives - The following goals and objectives were developed for this planning
effort:
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence.
establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile
establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile
close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks
• Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much
improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local
circulators, etc.
• Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative
traffic calming strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc.
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and
transit facilities.
• Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas,
providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and
workers.
• Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger
metropolitan open space systems and destinations.
• Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
• Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs
and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly"
amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping.
• Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan.
• Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Strategic Direction - the following vision Strategic Direction and focus areas have been
identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Proposed Future “Community” Walks
Exhibit B - Proposed Future Sidewalk System
Exhibit C - Proposed Future Trail System
Exhibit D - Proposed Future Bikeway System
Exhibit E - Proposed Future “Pedestrian” System
Exhibit F - Proposed Future “Biking” System
Exhibit G - Existing Sidewalk System
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 6
Exhibit B
Proposed Future Sidewalk System
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Community Sidewalks City Maintained 55.51 miles/293,086 feet
Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.1 Miles/11,018 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 64 miles/337,980 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.15 miles/ 11,342 feet
.(Sidewalk Systems 2023)
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 7
Exhibit C
Proposed Future Trail System
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Existing Trails
Future Trails
Future Bridges
.
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 8
Exhibit D
Proposed Future Bikeway System .
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Future Bikeways
Existing Bikeways
Continuation in adjacent City
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 9
Exhibit E
Proposed Future "Pedestrian" System
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Sidewalks
Trails
Future Bridges
.(Sidewalks and Trails)
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 10
Exhibit F
Proposed Future "Biking" System
.
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Bikeways
Trails
Future Bridges
Continuation in adjacent City
(Trails and Bikeways)
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 11
Exhibit G
Existing Sidewalk System
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Community Sidewalks City Maintained 45.7 miles/241,531 feet
Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.2 Miles/11,818 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 60.5 miles/319,680 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.2 miles/ 11,508 feet
.(Sidewalk Systems 2012)
Special Study Session Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 12
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 5, 2012
1. Call to Order
President Santa called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Sue Santa, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Deputy Executive Director (Ms. Deno), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes February 6, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period January 28, 2012, through February 24, 2012.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Authorize Bank Signatories
EDA Resolution No. 12-05
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and advised that this is a housekeeping item to update
the EDA bank signatories. She stated the signatories include Mr. Harmening, President
Santa, Mr. Swanson, and Mr. Heintz.
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 12-05 Authorizing Bank Signatories.
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2012
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period February 25 through April 6, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:15:44R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -2/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,875.50BELTLINE LRT STATION PLANNINGBARR ENGINEERING CO
3,875.50
360.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
30.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
390.00
99.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
99.00
921.25WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
677.50ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
47.50HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
367.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,458.75PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
677.50HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,215.00
5,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
5,000.00
42,677.007015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRATTALONE COMPANIES INC
2,133.85-DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE RETAINED PERCENTAGE
40,543.15
450,000.00VICTORIA PONDS G&A REFERENDUM - TAX INC. PAYHARDCOAT INC
450,000.00
8,594.58DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
8,594.58
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
5,625.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMYKLEBUST & STAN SEARS, ANDREA
5,625.00
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:15:44R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -2/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
451.98DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
451.98
7.97DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
7.97
54.17DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
54.17
6,873.22DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
6,873.22
3,453.67DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
3,453.67
87,678.09CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISIONST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS
87,678.09
103.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY
103.00
Report Totals 623,964.33
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 3
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments (West End Redevelopment
Phase IIC)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving a Subordination Agreement between the EDA, the
City and Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC, in connection with a mortgage loan to be made
by Grandbridge to WEA, LLC, the Redeveloper of the Phase IIC multifamily rental housing
development at The West End.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to approve a subordination agreement to facilitate the mortgage financing of
the West End Apartments (the multifamily rental housing component at The West End)?
Past EDA practice has been to approve subordination agreements in connection with its contracts
for private redevelopment, and such contracts have traditionally authorized such subordination
agreements as long as they are in a form mutually agreed by the parties in writing.
BACKGROUND:
On May 17, 2010, the EDA, the City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”)
entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”)
providing for the redevelopment of what is now known as The West End. The Contract provided
for redevelopment in several phases, including a phase to consist of either a hotel or multifamily
rental housing (referred to as “Phase IIC”).
Under Section 7.2(a) of the Contract, the EDA agreed to subordinate its rights under the Contract
to the holder of any mortgage, as long as “such subordination shall be subject to such reasonable
terms and conditions as the Authority and Holder of a Mortgage mutually agree in writing.”
As authorized by the Contract, the Redeveloper assigned its rights and obligations under the
Contract to WEA, LLC with respect to Phase IIC through an Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract dated October 4, 2010. The EDA approved this assignment. The
Assignment included a provision authorizing WEA, LLC to assume the rights and obligations of
Section 7.2(a) of the Contract.
Approval of the Subordination Agreement is consistent with past EDA practice related to its
Contracts for Private Redevelopment, and with the terms of the Contract for Private
Redevelopment related to The West End project. The Subordination Agreement is based on
previous subordination agreements drafted by the EDA’s counsel, Kennedy & Graven, and has
been reviewed and recommended for EDA approval by Kennedy & Graven.
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
The West End Apartments is a 119-unit apartment building to be constructed at 5310 16th Street
West. It is part of the overall West End redevelopment which includes the existing Shops at West
End and the proposed Towers at West End. The City Council granted all the zoning approvals
for the West End Apartments in 2010. Last month the City Council approved the PUD
Development Agreement relative to this project. WEA, LLC is preparing to close on its project
financing and begin construction on the West End Apartments this week. The project is expected
to be completed in 14 months.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None – the Assignment is a collateral assignment only, and does not subordinate the EDA’s
rights under the minimum value Assessment Agreement to be recorded against the Phase IIC
property.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: EDA Resolution Approving Subordination Agreement
Subordination Agreement
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
AUTHORITY AND GRANDBRIDGE REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1
("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and
within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF
District”).
1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Duke Realty Limited
Partnership entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as
of May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within
the TIF District.
1.03. Duke Realty Limited Partnership conveyed a portion of the property that is the
subject of the Contract to WEA, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) pursuant to an Assignment and
Assumption of Redevelopment Contract on October 10, 2010, on which portion the Redeveloper
intends to construct a multifamily rental housing facility (which development and related
property is referred to in the Contract as Phase IIC).
1.04. In order to receive mortgage financing for construction of the Phase IIC facility,
the Redeveloper’s mortgage lender, Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC (the “Lender”)
requires a collateral assignment of the Contract by the Authority and subordination of the
Authority’s rights under the Contract with respect to Phase IIC, as set forth in the subordination
agreement presented to the Authority (the “Subordination”).
1.05. The Contract provides for subordination of the Authority’s rights under the
Contract, so long as such subordination contains such reasonable terms and conditions as are
mutually agreed by the Authority and Lender in writing.
1.06. The Board has reviewed the Subordination and finds that the approval and
execution of the Subordination are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The Subordination as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved
by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Subordination by such
officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf
of the Authority the Subordination and any other documents requiring execution by the
Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Subordination.
2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to
carry out the intent of this resolution.
Approved by the Board of Commisioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority this 16th day of April, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
April 16, 2012
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made as of this _____
day of April, 2012, between GRANDBRIDGE REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability company (the “Lender”), whose address is at 227 West Trade Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202, 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. WEA, 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 agreed to make a mortgage loan to Redeveloper in the original
principal amount of $17,250,000.00 (the “Loan”). The Loan is evidenced and secured by
the following documents:
(i) a certain Note (the “Note”) made by Redeveloper dated as of April 1,
2012, in the amount of $17,250,000.00; and
(ii) a certain Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents and
Security Agreement (the “Mortgage”) made by Redeveloper, dated as of April 1, 2012
and filed April ____, 2012 with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as Doc. No.
__________ encumbering the Property; and
(iii) a certain UCC Financing Statement (the “Financing Statement”) made by
Redeveloper filed April ____, 2012 with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as Doc.
No. __________ encumbering the Property; and
(iv) a certain Regulatory Agreement (the “Regulatory Agreement”) made by
Redeveloper filed on April ___, 2012 with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as
Doc. No. __________ encumbering the Property.
The Note, the Mortgage, the Financing Statement and the Regulatory Agreement,
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
Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010, by and
among Authority, The City of St. Louis Park and Duke Realty Limited Partnership, filed
August 20, 2010 with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as Document
No. 4781478, which Contract was assigned to and assumed by Redeveloper in part
pursuant to Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract dated October 4,
2010, filed October 10, 2010 as Document No. T4795634 with the Hennepin County
Registrar of Titles (as so assigned and assumed, and as it encumbers the Property, the
“Contract”).
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
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:
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 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 shall not relieve the Redeveloper of
any of its obligations under the Contract; 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 under
the Contract with respect to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Property, 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
Assessment Agreement entered into pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Contract with respect to the
Property, and (c) any rights of the City under a REMA (as defined in Section 4.8 of the Contract)
encumbering the Property.
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 7.1(b) of the Contract, and Lender acknowledges that
thereafter the Authority has the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such defaults on behalf
of Borrower with such cure periods as are available to Borrower under the Loan Documents.
4. Statutory Exception. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter, remove or affect
Lender’s obligation under Minnesota Statutes, §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.
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
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.
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.
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
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 April, 2012, by
_______________________ and ______________________, the President and Executive
Director, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body
corporate and politic, on behalf of such public body.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
GRANDBRIDGE REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC
a North Carolina limited liability company
By: ______________________________
Timothy M. Duncan
Senior Vice President
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF KANSAS ]
] ss:
COUNTY OF __________________ ]
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of April, 2012, by
Timothy M. Duncan, as Senior Vice President of GRANDBRIDGE REAL ESTATE CAPITAL
LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official the day
and year in this Certificate first above written.
____________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: _________________________
EDA Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Subject: Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments
Exhibit A of Subordination Agreement
PROPERTY
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Retirement Recognition Resolution for Craig Panning, Parks and Recreation Manager of
Buildings and Structures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor is asked to read the Resolution and present plaque to Craig Panning for 37 years of
service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
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.
Parks and Recreation Manager of Buildings and Structures Craig Panning will be in attendance
for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The Mayor is asked to read the Resolution
and present Craig with a plaque in recognition of his years of service to the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: 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 April 16, 2012 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Craig Panning
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO CRAIG PANNING
WHEREAS, Craig Panning began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 37
years ago on February 10, 1975; and
WHEREAS, Craig has been an asset to the City of St. Louis Park for his commitment and
dedication to the Parks and Recreation Department as a programmer, ice arena and pool
manager, and was also instrumental in developing and implementing our parks master plan; and
WHEREAS, Craig has served on the board of the Ice Arena Manager’s Association; and
WHEREAS, Craig supervised the construction and addition of the Rec Center; and
WHEREAS, Craig is a 2005 Spirit of St. Louis Park Award winner; and
WHEREAS, Craig has purchased six Zambonis and scheduled approximately 160,000 hours
of ice in his time with the City; and
WHEREAS, Craig looks forward to retirement when he will spend his days at the cabin
fishing or at his duck shack hunting (not planting cottonwood trees);
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 Parks and Recreation
Manager of Buildings and Structures Craig Panning for his great contributions and 37 years of
dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 16, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Caring Youth Day Proclamation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to present the Caring Youth Day Proclamation. This is the 23nd year that
the community has held this celebration to recognize young people for their caring spirit and
concern for others. Bob Ramsey from the Caring Youth Recognition Committee will be in
attendance at the meeting to accept the proclamation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Twenty-three years ago Roland and Doris Larson, members of Westwood Lutheran Church, had
an idea to recognize young people for their spirit of caring and concern for others.
The Larson’s created this event at Westwood Lutheran Church out of the Larson’s lifelong
passion for youth ministry and caring. The following year, the Larson’s brought the idea to the
St. Louis Park community. In 1990, the Youth Development Committee under the leadership of
Beth Johnson held the first community-wide Caring Youth Recognition where 16 honorees were
named. Since then, the event has evolved and is truly community owned. Today, representatives
from several different community organizations plan the Caring Youth event. To recognize the
Larson’s continuous support, the honor was renamed in 2011 “The Roland and Doris Larson
Caring Youth Recognition”.
To date, 433 youth have been honored through St. Louis Park’s Caring Youth Recognition.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Bringing together people to recognize our youth is consistent with the Strategic Direction of
being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Subject: Caring Youth Day Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
CARING YOUTH DAY
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park will be hosting its 23nd annual community wide
celebration to recognize young people for their caring spirit and concern for others; and
WHEREAS, Caring Youth Day was the creation of Westwood Lutheran Church
and Roland and Doris Larson and is now planned by representatives of several
community organizations; and
WHEREAS, to date 433 youth have been honored through the Roland and Doris
Larson Caring Youth Recognition; and
WHEREAS, these young people are important assets to our community who
inspire all of us through their altruistic actions; and
WHEREAS, these additional young people who have involved themselves
unselfishly in a cause or situation that benefits others will be recognized on April 26,
2012;
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim April 26, 2012, to be Caring Youth Day in St.
Louis Park and call upon all citizens in our Community to join in the salute of these
special young people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great
Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this
16th day of April, 2012.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Recognition of Donation from Cargill and the St. Louis Park Lions Club for Tree Planting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, and Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator,
will be present to thank Cargill’s Salt Division and the St. Louis Park Lions Club for their
donation of $6,000 and $250 respectively to the Tree Trust for the planting of trees in St. Louis
Park. Erica Batdorf, Calvin Decorah, Sheila Ward and Richard Odhiambo, Cargill Employees, as
well as Mike Rardin, Lion’s Club representative, and Sue Gethin, Tree Trust President and
Karen Zumach, Forestry Manager of Tree Trust will be in attendance to present a tree
representing the donations for tree planting at Oak Hill Park (50 trees) and Wolfe Park (30 trees).
The donation will be officially given to Tree Trust.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None
BACKGROUND:
Cargill and St. Louis Park Lions Club are graciously donating an amount of $6,250 to Tree Trust
to plant trees in our park areas for the Reforest St. Louis Park Program. The Reforest St. Louis
Park Program is a partnership formed last year with Tree Trust to add 2,000 well-established
trees to the city over the next four years. This Project is part of an overall effort to reforest the
city after the loss of trees to Dutch elm disease, and to pre-forest the city before emerald ash
borer claims more.
The donation is given with the restriction that it be used to purchase a diverse array of tree
species culminating in a total of 80 trees to be planted in Oak Hill and Wolfe Parks; trees will be
planted by volunteers, primarily Cargill employees, in areas designated by staff.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City continues to budget funding each year to reforest the city. This donation helps our
effort.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Collaboration with other organizations is related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one
of the adopted Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being an “environmental
steward”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 26, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, and Julia
Ross.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmembers Sue Santa and Jake Spano.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Marjorie Herdes and Will Stockton, Ph.D. (Mobius, Inc.) and Craig Vaughn (SRF
Consulting Group).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 9, 2012
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for April 9, 2012.
Councilmember Mavity requested that Council briefly discuss the pedestrian and bicycle system
implementation plan included in the written reports.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that Council discuss the gambling premises permit for the
Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association included in the written reports.
Councilmember Ross requested that Council discuss the Voter ID issue at the end of the meeting.
2. Community Health Initiative
Ms. Gothberg presented the staff report and introduced Marjorie Herdes and Will Stockton from
Mobius, Inc.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the momentum that led to this
initiative and the expectations of the partners.
Ms. Herdes explained that Mobius sponsored a dialogue last May in which health care
professionals and citizens were invited to listen to a number of speakers, including a doctor from
the Mayo Clinic, regarding a holistic approach to health care. She stated they felt that St. Louis
Park had a good partnership with its businesses and residents and they asked the doctor to speak
about his vision and what it would look like to be a city that takes on health in a holistic fashion.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested further information about the goals of the proposed
community health initiative and what the City is being asked to provide.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
Councilmember Ross noted that Park Nicollet is not the only health care provider in the area and
felt that any community health initiative should include input or buy-in from other community
partners such as STEP. She expressed concern about the make-up of the partnership and wanted
to see groups currently under-represented in the community included as part of any steering
committee.
Ms. Gothberg agreed that this made sense.
Dr. Stockton advised that the other partners were asked what results they would like to see and
they indicated that from a health point of view, they would need to set some markers for
improvement in the health of the entire community, but at this point, those benchmarks are not
yet defined. He stated this will be discussed at the meeting in the fall as part of the initial
community-wide dialogue.
Ms. Herdes stated that Park Nicollet has indicated it wants citizens to lead the community health
initiative and they are asking the City to be one of the partners that supports and invites this
dialogue in the fall.
Councilmember Mavity expressed support for the project and stated it feels consistent with the
City’s culture and how the City does its work. She added the challenge will be to make sure that
all groups receive adequate representation.
Ms. Gothberg stated the City has a long history of working with Park Nicollet and the schools
and the City would help convene the fall meeting and would make a determination after the
meeting whether to continue participation in the community health initiative.
Councilmember Hallfin expressed support for the proposed community health initiative.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that any community health initiative should also focus on mental
health and chemical health issues. She added that there are non-profit organizations in the
community that provide these types of services and they should be invited to the table as well.
Dr. Stockton indicated there are tremendous resources available in this community but people do
not necessarily know these resources exist or how to access them and one possible indicator of
success might be to make those resources more widely known.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if grant money is available for this project.
Dr. Stockton replied that there is grant money available and they have had discussions with TPT
about TPT being a potential recorder of this engagement so that the story that emerges is one that
could be used as a model for other communities.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the focus appears to be primarily on insured people and requested
that health improvement for uninsured people be part of the focus as well.
It was the consensus of the City Council to support the City’s partnership in the proposed
community health initiative.
3. Environmental Input Discussion
Ms. Deno presented the staff report. She referenced the background information contained in the
staff report, including historical information regarding the formation of the Police Advisory
Commission.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
Councilmember Mavity thanked City staff for the extensive background information included in
the report. She suggested the concept where the City could form a resident task force for a
limited time, e.g., five meetings. She suggested the first meeting provide background
information and be used as an educational meeting to make sure everyone is on the same page;
the second meeting could be a brainstorming session; the third meeting could be used to sift
through ideas from the brainstorming session and begin to prioritize the ideas; the fourth meeting
could be used to discuss various options and discuss whether to form a commission; and the final
meeting could be used for making a final recommendation to the City.
Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged the City’s desire to remain sensitive to the other boards
and commissions and stated he did not believe the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
would feel that an environmental task force would be doing similar work to the work of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. He stated he was in agreement with
Councilmember Mavity’s concept for forming a task force.
Councilmember Ross stated she was in agreement with Councilmember Mavity’s concept for
forming a task force and felt it was a good starting point. She indicated there is a lot that can be
done in this community around education, getting new ideas, keeping an eye on what other
communities are doing, and trends and shifts outside the City. She stated it will also be
important to think about how the City works with other groups, e.g., the Watershed Districts, and
to look at what other people are doing creatively to control air and ground pollution, as well as
working with refuse providers around recycling issues. She added it would be nice if the City
had a group that could serve as the City’s content experts and that could tie all the other
commissions together as well.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recognized that staff has already done a lot of good work on
environmental issues and this discussion should not be interpreted as a put down of staff. She
stated that environmental stewardship is one of the four main Vision goals for the community
and the City needs to have a board or some equivalent mechanism whose main focus is
environmental issues. She agreed with the framework of Councilmember Mavity’s concept and
suggested that the task force be charged with defining the mission and goals of a new board or
some equivalent mechanism. She added that the mission could include advising Council on new
areas or issues that are emerging related to the environment.
Mr. Harmening requested clarification regarding Councilmember Mavity’s concept and stated
that under Councilmember Mavity’s approach, the task force would be asked to define the
approach the City should take for public input into the City’s environmental policies and
initiatives. He indicated the task force could then go through the five meeting process to help
define what is missing. If Council wants to move directly to a commission, that should be stated
in these meetings up front. He stated it appears that Council wants more of the open ended
question on what type of environmental input is recommended for our community.
Councilmember Ross agreed with the concept of formation of a new environmental commission
with Council setting the framework for what that commission looks like, outlining its goals, and
defining how the commission can assist the City in meeting its Vision, and leaving this open to
the task force to recommend.
Councilmember Mavity stated there might be other venues available that could offer resident
interaction about environmental issues such as someone could create an online forum that could
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
connect residents on various issues, e.g., community gardens. She indicated the task force could
then address issues more appropriate for the entire community related to the environment. She
supported the City asking residents to sign up for a time-limited task force that may result in the
formation of a new commission or that may result in other recommendations for residents related
to the environment.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger felt the resulting work of the time-limited task force may result in the
formation of a new commission and/or other recommendations. Councilmember Mavity
requested the names of the people on the environmental Vision team.
Ms. Gothberg suggested that the task force be composed of 8-15 people.
Ms. Deno asked if Council wants to select the members of the task force.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will prepare a proposal for Council consideration prior to
soliciting task force members. He added the proposal will be on the agenda in April.
4. Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
Mr. Brink presented the staff report and proposed trail improvement options.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the SWLRT Community Works Committee has been
reviewing circulation and development around the proposed light rail stations and noted that
whatever improvements the City makes are likely to be undone if and when light rail happens.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he was okay with that and added that safety is paramount to cost
in this location.
Mr. Vaughn explained the issue at this location is the perceived and real difficulty for trail users
to cross four lanes of an undivided section of roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph and heavy
traffic volumes. He stated there is a misnomer as to who has the right-of-way at the crossing and
the proposed improvements attempt to address a means to allow users to safely cross the
roadway by causing an effect on the trail users and cars. He explained they have attempted to
create a physical environment that gives cues to both cars and trail users by changing the
alignment of the trail to cause enough of a change to the trail user’s experience in how they
approach the crossing.
Councilmember Mavity asked if her understanding was correct that the challenge in having a
trail crossing mid-block is less safe, based on research and professional opinions and expertise.
Mr. Vaughn confirmed this was correct and added that research and statistics show that having a
marked crosswalk at a mid-block location is less safe than if it were an unmarked crossing. He
stated that typical practice has been to mark these crossings but there has been a paradigm shift
in thinking to not marking these crossings. He stated the trail improvements include realigning
the trail crossing and shifting of the roadway to the east to accommodate a twelve-foot median.
He noted that all improvements take place north of the railroad tracks and will maintain eleven
foot lanes in the roadway which will continue the calming effect on traffic; in addition, the multi-
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
use path on the east side will be maintained. He added that the wider median will create a two-
stage crossing for trail users to cross the roadway. He noted these improvements will require
installation of a retaining wall approximately twelve feet from the trail.
Councilmember Mavity stated the estimated cost of these improvements is $150,000 and asked
what the cost would be to paint the crosswalk and install signage in the area.
Mr. Vaughn replied that paint and signs could cost a few thousand dollars (~$3,000).
Councilmember Hallfin expressed support for the proposed trail improvements and requested the
City seek funding assistance from Three Rivers Park District.
Councilmember Ross expressed support for the proposed trail improvements and felt the
improvements represent one of the few solutions available to the City at this time. She
acknowledged the cost involved for this short-term project, particularly if the City is unable to
obtain funding assistance from other sources.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed concern that the improvements will not address the traffic
problems, safety issues, and sight line problems. She stated the proposal also does not address
the problem with one car stopping for a trail user and another car failing to stop. She felt that the
lack of a crosswalk has not solved the problem and also felt the consultant’s recommendation is
totally different than what seems to be the norm. She indicated the information put out by the
City is different from other cities and believed the City gave incorrect information that vehicles
do not have to stop at trail crossings. She felt strongly that the City needs a crosswalk at this
location and it was more important for the City to be consistent with all other communities as it
relates to trail crossings and right-of-ways.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was hesitant to spend $150,000 on improvements that may not
completely address some of the broader user issues in this area, especially since the
improvements might be torn out in five years, and did not feel she could vote in favor of the
improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger felt the concept was a good concept but did not think it would address
the problem of drivers not stopping for trail users and urged the City to further educate drivers
and trail users. She asked what would happen if the City were to put the crosswalk back in this
location and to install an overhead sign that alerts drivers in a more forceful fashion.
Councilmember Hallfin felt that the City did a great job with this plan and respectfully disagreed
with Mayor Pro Tem Sanger and Councilmember Mavity. He stated that spending $150,000 was
nothing if it means it will save a life. He felt the wider median and angled trail crossings were
safer than a sign or marked crosswalk.
Councilmember Mavity stated if cost were not an issue, then the City should build a grade
separated bridge at this location. She expressed concern that the proposed trail improvements
will not adequately address the concerns in this area. She added the City has until the end of the
year to have a concrete plan in place in terms of the infrastructure for the light rail stations and
felt the City could make a decision at that time about whether it wants to invest in a grade
separated bridge at this location.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
Mr. Harmening acknowledged there is no perfect solution in this location short of a grade
separated crossing. He stated there are cheaper alternatives available, including restriping the
crosswalk.
Councilmember Ross stated she would like to hear from Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers
Santa and Spano before moving forward with any improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if there was any way to install lights that trail users could activate
to warn drivers that there is someone entering the road.
Mr. Vaughn explained there are side mounted pedestrian crossing or trail crossing signs available
that flash and are typically implemented with a crosswalk. He stated that signs would not be
appropriate at this location due to the adjacent railroad crossing and conflicts with the signage
and flashing lights associated with this rail crossing equipment. Similar to Wooddale Avenue
crossing in-pavement lighting would be a more appropriate application here if a crosswalk and
advance warning indications were desired.
It was the consensus of the City Council to defer action on this item until all Councilmembers
are present.
5. Business Park Zoning District
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Business Park Zoning District as the
implementation of the new land use category in the Comprehensive Plan. This new category was
developed to better address the needs of the market and guide development in the City. She
explained the City’s Zoning Ordinance follows the standard layout of existing ordinances and
includes five categories of uses in all zoning districts. She stated the Business Park Zoning
District would limit outdoor storage, heavy manufacturing, and warehouse type uses and would
allow more office, density, and uses incidental to other uses in the area. She added that any
Business Park property in the City could request this zoning reclassification.
Councilmember Mavity questioned why any type of housing was excluded from the area
between County Road 25 and the transit line and felt this area was ripe for that even if co-located
as business and office space.
Ms. McMonigal stated that an overlay district might be able to address that issue. She indicated
the proposed zoning district attempts to avoid wholesale changes and noted there is a lot of
multi-family residential within one-half mile of this area.
Councilmember Ross expressed support for the proposed Business Park Zoning District.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed support for the proposed Business Park Zoning District and
requested that definitions of light assembly work and low impact manufacturing and processing
be included.
Mr. Fulton stated the definitions would be included in the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the ordinance include a requirement for sidewalks. She
also requested that the ordinance include more restrictive standards that address signage
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
limitations, noise, fumes, odors, and other items associated with manufacturing that can be
detrimental to nearby residents.
Mr. Fulton stated that these standards would be addressed through uses allowed.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger felt the setback requirements from residential areas were not sufficient
and requested that the setbacks be increased.
Mr. Fulton explained that item 3a of the proposed ordinance is comparable to the most restrictive
setbacks in place in the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmember Ross noted the City recently approved a care facility on Wayzata Boulevard that
uses this standard. She stated she did not want to make the setbacks too restrictive at this time.
Councilmember Hallfin suggested using a 50’ setback requirement and if someone wanted a 35’
setback they would have to request a variance.
Councilmember Mavity felt the text should remain consistent with the rest of the City Code. She
asked what conversations have occurred with existing land owners and business owners.
Ms. McMonigal advised that several meetings have taken place with business owners and some
of them would like to change their zoning because they frequently get requests for these types of
uses. She stated the City is hesitant to force the zoning on a property owner.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City will grandfather in existing uses.
Ms. McMonigal replied in the affirmative and stated these properties would be non-conforming
uses that could continue their use but not expand.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she was opposed to spot zoning and if the City only changes the
zoning upon request of the property owner, the City will end up with spot zoning, which is not
good for the City or its immediate neighbors.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move forward with rezoning as many
of the properties as reasonably possible and to remain sensitive to the property owners involved.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-In
Voter ID
Councilmember Ross urged the City to determine the ramifications to the City of the voter ID
amendment, including increased costs for election judges and the issue with provisional ballots.
She felt the City should send a strong message that there has already been enough burdens
shifted to cities without adding the voter ID requirement and requested that Council adopt a
resolution opposing the amendment.
Councilmember Mavity supported adopting a resolution. She stated the League has prepared a
report on the implications of voter ID for cities and it would be helpful to have a strong factual
staff report to use in the resolution to educate people on the implications to the City. She
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
suggested the resolution include some sort of public education without being overtly political
that discusses the impact on the City should this happen.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger was supportive of having a resolution adopted by Council. She stated it
sometimes takes up to seven weeks for the State to issue driver’s licenses and ID cards and felt
the public education should tell people about the time it takes to get a State-issued ID card. She
requested that the City research whether it can issue photo IDs to residents that meet the
requirements of the proposed law.
Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated a gambling premise permit is being requested by the Hopkins
Raspberry Festival Association for Toby Keith’s and did not feel it was appropriate to issue a
permit when the establishment is on probation for not selling enough food. She indicated that a
gambling premise permit should not be issued until they come off probation.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed.
Mr. Harmening stated that Council has considerable discretion in granting a gambling premise
permit and can deny the permit after articulating and adopt a finding of fact that the denial is to
protect the welfare of the City and its residents.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that a gambling premise permit should not be granted based on
Toby Keith’s provisional liquor status.
Councilmember Ross indicated this raises the larger discussion that Council should have
regarding its food to liquor ratio and whether to amend this requirement.
It was the consensus of the City Council that at such time the application was brought to the City
Council, it shall not be approved until Toby Keith’s was off probation.
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Councilmember Mavity suggested that the definition of Community sidewalks include a
reference to the number of bicycles and pedestrians using the sidewalk per day so that the City
has an understanding of the role that intensity of the use plays in whether a sidewalk is a
Community sidewalk or Neighborhood sidewalk. She also suggested that consideration be given
to having shared cost as an option for Neighborhood sidewalks. She requested that the City
make sure to avail itself of various new technologies related to sidewalks and to make sure the
City is being creative in materials used.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the definition of sidewalks be consistent as it relates to
how far someone has to travel to get to their destination. She asked if the City could create a
special service district for a block or neighborhood for the purpose of snowplowing, similar to an
association.
Holiday Observances
Mr. Harmening stated that the City currently observes Christian and Jewish holidays for its
Council meetings. He stated that Edina’s Council meeting schedule policy includes Muslim and
Hindu observances.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Subject: Study Session Minutes of March 26, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger felt if someone has business before Council that is in conflict with their
religious observance, Council will reschedule the item.
It was the consensus of the City Council to take no action at this time with respect to Council’s
meeting schedule policy.
The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
8. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
9. February 2012 Monthly Financial Report
10. Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
11. 2011 Lawful Gambling Ten Percent Contribution Fund Report
12. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: March 2012
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 2, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), Fire Chief (Mr.
Stemmer), Assistant Fire Chief (Mr. Smith), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Director of Community
Development (Mr. Locke), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1c. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. ParkTV Local Programming Month Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs recited the ParkTV Local Programming Month Proclamation and
expressed thanks to City staff and all the volunteers for their efforts.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes March 12, 2012
Councilmember Ross requested that the eleventh paragraph on page 4 be amended to
state “Councilmember Ross suggested the City do more education including putting
something on public access on how to get rid of stop junk mail from coming and
recycling CFL bulbs and batteries at more accessible City sites.”
Councilmember Ross requested that a paragraph be added on page 6 regarding the Eliot
School discussion that states “Councilmember Ross noted that this issue was brought up
to Council due to some vandalism at Eliot School and someone starting a small fire.”
Councilmember Ross also requested that a fifth paragraph be added on page 6 that states
“Councilmembers Ross and Sanger agreed that they would only consider this option if it
were tied to a contract for repayment to the City.”
Councilmember Sanger requested that a sixth paragraph be added on page 6 that states
“Councilmember Sanger felt that any repayment should include interest.”
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2012
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 2012
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2412-12 amending the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code Section 10-1 establishing ward boundary lines, and to
Adopt Resolution No. 12-060 establishing precincts and polling places.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-053 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 3205 Cavell Lane, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 18-117-
21-24-0014.
4c. Accept Donation from the Minnesota Resuscitation Consortium Grant in the
amount of $5,000 for community hands only CPR training.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-054 in Support of the 2012 TED Grant Request for the
Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange project, Project No. 2012-0100.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 12-055 establishing a special assessment for the
installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 7317 West Lake Street, St.
Louis Park, MN.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-056 accepting this report, establishing and approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for the roof
replacement at various park buildings damaged in the 2011 hail storm.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 12-057 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 7429 Edgebrook Drive, St. Louis Park, MN, - P.I.D. 20-
117-21-21-0073.
4h. Approve for filing Vendor Claims.
4i. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes February 8, 2012.
4j. Approve for filing Human Rights Commission Minutes February 21, 2012.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2012
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to appoint
John Hall to the Police Advisory Commission.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Recreational Fire Permit Fee
Resolution No. 12-058
Mr. Stemmer presented the staff report and explained the City is proposing to implement
a one-time $25.00 recreational fire permit fee that would be valid as long as the property
owner lives on the property. He stated the City issued almost 700 recreational fire
permits last year and the Fire Department responded to a number of complaints including
illegal burning, unattended fires, and nuisance smoke. He advised that fire pits are not
being properly located on properties and the recreational fire permit fee will include a
requirement that residents provide a sketch showing the location of the fire pit and will
provide an opportunity for the City to further educate residents regarding what they can
and cannot burn. He stated the City does not currently charge a recreational fire permit
fee and the $25.00 fee will cover the City’s administrative costs; in addition, the City will
have the ability to impose civil penalties for anyone violating the rules.
Councilmember Spano asked if the recreational fire permit is attached to the property, to
the location of the fire pit on the property, to the property owner, or some combination
thereof.
Mr. Smith replied that the issuance of the fire permit attaches to the resident at a
particular property as well as the fire pit’s location as documented by the sketch
submitted with the permit fee.
Councilmember Spano suggested that the language in the third WHEREAS clause of the
resolution be amended to state the City Council is in consensus to implement a one-time
recreational fire permit fee of $25.00 to the current owner, or renter of the property with
the property owner’s permission. The Recreational Fire Permit is non- transferable.
Councilmember Ross stated that a lot of fire pits are easily moved and expressed concern
that once someone is issued their permit, the fire pit will be moved around the yard.
Mr. Stemmer indicated that property owners will be required to comply with all setback
requirements related to a fire pit’s location on the property.
Councilmember Sanger stated this was a difficult issue that requires a balancing act
because there are many people who enjoy the ambience of a fire but there are also a lot of
people who are bothered by the smoke, particularly those with asthma or other medical
conditions. She indicated the recreational fire permit fee provides a good opportunity to
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2012
educate residents about their responsibilities if they are going to have a fire. She
requested that residents be respectful of their neighbors, particularly those with medical
conditions that could be exacerbated by a fire.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-058 Adopting New Recreational Fire Permit Fee of $25.00, as
amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Hoigaard Village – PUD Major Amendment for a Modification to the Adagio
Building – Resolution No. 12-059
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and stated the overall density will be increased from
374 to 416, or 42 units per acre compared to the previous 37 units per acre. He indicated
the previous parking requirement for the Adagio building was 93 spaces and 98 spaces
were provided; the revised requirement is for 116 spaces with no reduction. He stated
that 100 underground spaces will be provided along with 28 on-street parking spaces
adjacent to the building as well as overflow parking in the area south of the pond. He
stated the Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) has been enhanced to include a
pool, patio area with seating and grills, a grass recreation area, and putting green. He
stated the Adagio building will mirror the Harmony Vista building and major changes
include the roof style and height of the building. He noted the shading analysis meets the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He then introduced Mr. Frank Dunbar and Noah
Bly of UrbanWorks Architecture.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the project as currently proposed is vastly different
from what was approved in 2005 and includes more units that are smaller and not nearly
as many larger units as originally proposed. She indicated the original project also
included more owner occupied units and the project now has a much higher percentage of
rental units. She stated this was a concern for her because of the City’s ongoing policy of
promoting housing for families and owner occupied housing and was disappointed with
how this project was turning out.
Councilmember Mavity stated she was happy to see this project move forward and felt
the enhanced DORA requirements would add value to the project and community. She
shared Councilmember Sanger’s concerns about the number of small units.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-059 Amending and Restating Resolution No. 06-157 Adopted on
October 3, 2006, Approving a Final Planned Unit Development Under Section 36-367 of
the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Allow Site Plan Modifications
and an Increase in Density for Property Zoned M-X Mixed Use and R-C Multifamily
Residential Located at 5600 36th Street West, 5655 35th Street West, 5650 35th Street West,
5600 Camerata Way.
Councilmember Hallfin requested further information regarding the number of units
being proposed and the number of parking spaces provided.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2012
Mr. Fulton stated the City Code has been revised since this project was originally
approved and the Code previously required two parking spaces per dwelling unit and 116
spaces were required for the proposed 58 unit condominium building. He stated in 2007,
Council revised its parking calculations for multi-family residential projects to require
one parking space per bedroom which more accurately reflects market needs and the
developer has provided 100 underground parking spaces and 28 on-street parking spaces.
He indicated the proposed modifications now include 42 additional units.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that this area is becoming quite dense and urged the City
to remain mindful of the density in this area going forward.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the building will be constructed in a manner such that
the rental units can be converted to condominiums.
Mr. Locke replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Frank Dunbar appeared before the City Council and stated that all the buildings in
the project are built to the same specifications, whether condominiums or apartments, and
the only thing that is different is the CIC plat which gets filed with the County for tax
purposes.
Councilmember Ross stated she would reluctantly support this and expressed concern
about density and traffic flow in this area.
Councilmember Mavity felt this project represented a great opportunity vis-à-vis light rail
and the City’s desire to have dense uses around the light rail stations.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. SWLRT Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) – Alternate Appointments
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
Councilmember Mavity stated she spoke with Julia Williams, and Ms. Williams
expressed great interest in serving as an alternate on the CAC. She felt that Ms. Williams
would be a great addition to the CAC because she lives in the Minikahda Oaks
neighborhood and serves as the president of the neighborhood association. She noted that
this neighborhood will be one of the most heavily impacted areas for the Beltline station.
Councilmember Sanger asked if anyone else had applied for the CAC.
Ms. Deno replied that the City received no other applications for CAC.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to appoint
Julie Williams as an alternate on the SWLRT Citizen Advisory Committee.
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2012
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
prioritize the alternates on the SWLRT Citizen Advisory Committee as follows:
1. Kathryn Kottke
2. Claudia Johnston-Madison
3. Julie Williams
Councilmember Ross asked if the CAC appointees were made aware that Council was
prioritizing them for purposes of filling in when members are absent.
Ms. Deno stated that Council discussed this at its meeting but there is no formal
document of that nature.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Mavity opposed).
Mayor Jacobs stated that alternates are welcome to attend any of the CAC meetings. He
added that residents can also attend these public meetings.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the spaghetti dinner at Lenox on Friday, April 27th.
Councilmember Spano reminded residents that yard waste pickup started today.
Councilmember Santa reminded residents that hydrant flushing will begin the week of
April 9th.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Retirement Recognition Resolution for Craig Panning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution to recognize Parks and Recreation Manager of Buildings and
Structures Craig Panning for his 37 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
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 Resolution that honors Craig Panning for his years of
service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: 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 April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Craig Panning
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO CRAIG PANNING
WHEREAS, Craig Panning began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 37
years ago on February 10, 1975; and
WHEREAS, Craig has been an asset to the City of St. Louis Park for his commitment and
dedication to the Parks and Recreation Department as a programmer, ice arena and pool
manager, and was also instrumental in developing and implementing our parks master plan; and
WHEREAS, Craig has served on the board of the Ice Arena Manager’s Association; and
WHEREAS, Craig supervised the construction and addition of the Rec Center; and
WHEREAS, Craig is a 2005 Spirit of St. Louis Park Award winner; and
WHEREAS, Craig has purchased six Zambonis and scheduled approximately 160,000
hours of ice in his time with the City; and
WHEREAS, Craig looks forward to retirement when he will spend his days at the cabin
fishing or at his duck shack hunting (not planting cottonwood trees);
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 Parks and Recreation
Manager of Buildings and Structures Craig Panning for his great contributions and 37 years of
dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 16, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2012 Neighborhood Grants
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the 2012 Neighborhood Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the allocation of neighborhood grants for 2012?
BACKGROUND:
Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to promote strong
neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together. The City
Council appropriated $31,000 in grant funds for the 2012 neighborhood grant program, $2,000
for environmental initiatives, and $15,000 for insurance. Organized St. Louis Park neighborhood
associations may apply for up to $2,000 annually to support activities, operations and community
building activities and up to $100 for environmental related activities.
Neighborhood Associations are responsible for providing insurance when planning
neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not limited
to, moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. Neighborhood associations can apply for a maximum of $500
in addition to the standard grant to assist with purchasing insurance.
Grant applications from 22 neighborhoods were received in March. The total grant request for
2012 was $32,195. Thirteen of these neighborhoods also applied for additional insurance
reimbursements and twelve neighborhoods applied for the environmental funding. On April 5th,
Community Liaison Marney Olson facilitated the grant review process with Grant Review
Committee Members Erica Bagstad (Pennsylvania Park), Gregg Lindberg (Texa Tonka) and
Brian Johnson (Minikahda Oaks). The Grant Review Committee met to review the grant
applications and make funding recommendations to the City Council. Attached is a worksheet
that provides specific detail on the recommendations made by the Grant Review Committee.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $31,000 to fund the following 22
neighborhood grants:
$1700 Aquila $1800 Birchwood $1945 Blackstone
$1140 Bronx Park $560 Brooklawns $1100 Brookside
$2000 Browndale $1000 Cobblecrest $980 Creekside
$350 Crestview $1950 Eliot View $1875 Elmwood
$1020 Lake Forest $1400 Lenox $1600 Minikahda Oaks
$1230 Minikahda Vista $1640 Minnehaha $950 Oak Hill
$1800 Sorensen $1060 South Oak Hill $2000 Triangle
$1900 Westwood Hills
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants
Twelve neighborhoods applied for the Environmental Grant totaling $1,260. Transfers from the
neighborhood grant to the environmental grant component were made where appropriate (please
see attached worksheet). As a result the Grant Review Committee recommends approval of
$1,800 to fund the environmental grants for eighteen neighborhoods.
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $4,790 to fund insurance purchases for
thirteen neighborhood associations.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The neighborhood grants support the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community.
The environmental component of the grant also supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park
is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: 2012 Grant Committee Worksheet
Prepared by: Marney Olson
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Requests total $32,195. 2012 Grant Budget is $31,000.
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,700 Aquila $1,700
$500 Trail Clean Up
$600 Picnic/Annual Meeting
$450 Postage/Newsletter
$75 Trail Meet and Greet
$75 Garage Sale
$50 Insurance Request $50
$100 Environmental Request - Trail Beautification $100
$1,900 Birchwood $1,800
$650 Summer Party
$400 Newsletter
$600 Winter Party
$250 Movie Night
$500 Insurance Request $500
$0 Environmentally Friendly Products at events $100
$1,945 Blackstone $1,945
$270 Porta Potty
$160 Blackstone Park Lawn & Trees
$190 2012 Kick Off Party
$170 Summer Gathering
$75 Ice Cream Float Social
$445 National Night Out
$215 Pizza Night
$260 Election/Winter Gathering
$160 Operating Support
$90 Insurance Request $90
$100 Flowers for Blackstone Park $100
Insurance and Environmental Requests came in under budget.
Grant Committee Worksheet
2012 Neighborhood Grant Request
Utilize environmentally friendly
products at neighborhood events
- reduced grant by $100 and
added $100 environmental
component.
The Grant Review Committee reviewed the 22 grant requests received from eligible
neighborhood associations.
Grant Review Committee Meeting April 5th, 6:00 pm, Aquila Room, City Hall
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants Page 3
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,290 Bronx Park $1,140
$600 Annual Neighborhood Picnic
$150 Garage Sale
$190 General Meeting Expenses
$200 Neighborhood Newsletter
$150 Movie Night
$200 Insurance Request $100
$0 Garage Sale $100
$560 Brooklawns $560
$300 Kid's Halloween Party
$260 National Night Out
$1,200 Brookside $1,100
$500 National Night Out
$200 Parade & Picnic at Jackley Park
$250 Annual Meeting
$100 Garage Sale
$150 Porta Potty at Jackley (shared with Creekside)
$150 Insurance Request $150
$0 Garage Sale $100
$2,000 Browndale $2,000
$400 Newsletter
$600 Fall Bonfire & Bluegrass
$500 Family Camp Outs
$100 Winterfest
$150 Spring Egg Hunt
$125 Earth Day Children's Event
$125 July 4th Kiddie Parade
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Earth Day Park Cleanup $100
$1,000 Cobblecrest $1,000
$700 Hayride
$300 National Night Out
$400 Insurance Request $400
Removed Garage Sale
funding from regular grant
and awarded $100 for
Garage Sale from
Environmental Grant.
Removed Garage Sale
funding from regular grant
and awarded $100 for
Garage Sale from
Environmental Grant.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants Page 4
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,005 Creekside $980
$30 Plant Exchange
$40 Neighborhood Flower Urn
$600 Block party
$150 Porta Potty at Jackley (shared with Brookside)
$25 Administrative Costs and Annual Meeting
$50 Winter Activity
$30 Adult Only Event
$40 Creek Clean Up
$40 National Night Out
$75 Butterfly Garden $100
$500 Insurance Request $500
$350 Crestview $350
$100 Inflatable Rental
$250 Monument/Sign Restoration
$500 Insurance Request $500
$2,000 Eliot View $1,950
$700 Annual Picnic & Election
$400 Garden Party w/ Ice Cream Social
$350 National Night Out
$450 Youth Activity/Fitness
$100 Website Development
$100 Garden tour & Garden Party $100
$1,875 Elmwood $1,875
$75 Garage Sale
$700 Annual Neighborhood Picnic
$450 Kids Halloween and Pumpkin Carving Party
$50 Annual Meeting
$600 Year Round Porta Potty at Central Park
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Justad Porta Potty $100
$1,035 Lake Forest $1,020
$585 Neighborhood Annual Summer Party
$260 National Night Out Block parties
$90 General Association Supplies
$100 Fence and Sign Upkeep
$85 Environmentally Friendly Items for Events $100
Reduced grant by $25 and
added $25 to
environmental grant. Many
of Creekside's events fall
within the environmental
component.
Reduced grant by $50.
Requests added up to
$2000 but grant request on
grant application was
$1950.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants Page 5
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,400 Lenox $1,400
$600 Neighborhood Newsletter
$200 Fall Picnic
$200 Roxbury rees
$200 Light Rail Update Meeting
$200 Lake Street Business Promotion
$100 Roxbury Park Improvements $100
$1,600 Minikahda Oaks $1,600
$350 Spring Social
$250 Summer Fall Social/National Night Out
$100 Neighborhood Family Bike Tour
$200 Winter Social
$700 Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood Sign Project
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Friends of Bass Lake $100
$1,635 Minikahda Vista $1,230
$150 Neighborhood Plant Swap
$390 Neighborhood Garage Sale
$100 Newsletter Postage
$935 National Night Out
$60 Fall Event
$0 Garage Sale $100
$1,675 Minnehaha $1,640
$580 National Night Out
$360 Children's Play Time
$135 Neighborhood Yard Sale
$600 Neighborhood Newsletters
$100 Spring Clean-up $100
$500 Insurance Request $500
$1,050 Oak Hill $950
$350 Annual Mailing
$200 Fall Park Project
$500 Skating Bench
$0 Park Project $100
Removed Garage Sale funding
from regular grant and awarded
$100 for Garage Sale from
Environmental Grant. Reduced
NNO to $920 (request was
above max. for single event)
Reduced Garage Sale (Yard
Sale) to $100
Reduced park project to $100
added $100 to environmental
component for this project.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants Page 6
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,800 Sorensen $1,800
$670 Neighborhood Newsletters
$650 Annual Fall Social
$190 Annual Sorensen Business Meeting
$240 Webster Park Porta Potty
$50 Wine and Cheese Fundraiser
$100 Environmental Education $100
$1,175 South Oak Hill $1,060
$680 Neighborhood BBQ and Potluck
$315 Neighborhood Meetings
$65 Neighborhood Newsletter
$115 Kids at Play Signs
$2,000 Triangle $2,000
$700 Halloween Event
$600 Movie Nights (June - Oct)
$700 Outdoor Social Potluck
$100 Environmentally Friendly Products $100
Requested
Amount
$2,000 Westwood Hills $1,900
$700 Winter Hayride
$400 Ice Cream Social
$200 Ladies Night
$700 Fall party
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Environmentally Friendly Products $100
Recommended
$32,195 Total Requested by All Neighborhoods $31,000
$4,890 Total Insurance Request $4,790
$1,260 Total Environmental Requst $1,800
Insurance requests came in under budget and all requests are recommended for funding.
Utilize environmentally friendly
products at neighborhood events
- reduced grant by $100 and
added $100 environmental
component.
Requests total $32,195. 2012 Grant Budget is $31,000. The Grant Review Committee
reduced neighborhood grant requests by $1,195. The maximum garage sale funding for
2012 is $100 and funding for garage sales was moved to the environmental grant
component for neighborhoods requesting garage sale funding that did not have an
environmental request.
Environmental requests came to $1260. Transfers from the neighborhood grant to the
environmental grant component were made where appropriate and $1800 in funding is
recommended for the environmental component. This is still under budget.
Eliminated funding for Kids
at Play Signs.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants Page 7
Proposed Requested Reduced by
Aquila 1700 2000 300
Birchwood 1850 2000 150
Blackstone 1700 1945 245
Bronx Park 935 935 0
Brooklawns 710 710 0
Brookside 1300 1410 110
Browndale 1850 2000 150
Cobblecrest 935 1005 70
Creekside 950 1020 70
Eliot View 1290 1700 410
Elmwood 1500 1700 200
Kilmer Pond 1525 1725 200
Lake Forest 800 800 0
Lenox 1200 1200 0
Minnehaha 750 750 0
Minikahda Oaks 1200 1400 200
Minikahda Vista 1375 1375 0
Oak Hill 1340 1340 0
Sorensen 1700 1860 160
South Oak Hill 1850 1910 60
Triangle 1600 1600 0
Westwood Hills 1625 1625 0
Willow Park 1315 1315 0
0
0
31000 33325 2325
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4b)
Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Grants Page 8
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Outstanding Citizen Award Program Task Force
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to appoint the following commissioners to serve on the Task Force for the St. Louis Park
Outstanding Citizen Award Program for a term to expire based on their respective commission
term or a three year maximum, whichever is reached first:
1. Marjorie Douville, Fire Civil Service Commission
2. James Gainsley, Board of Zoning Appeals
3. Justin Kaufman, Housing Authority
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to appoint the three interested Commissioners to serve on the Task Force?
BACKGROUND:
On August 8, 2011, Council discussed the concept of an Outstanding Citizen Award program
and on September 26, 2011, Council received a draft of the program. On October 3, 2011,
Council approved an Outstanding Citizen Award Program to recognize individuals throughout
the year for their contributions to the community. The major program components are as follows:
• The individual may be nominated by anyone.
• Nominations may be made anytime throughout the year.
• Council selects a Task Force of three current board or Commission members to review
nominations and make recommendations to Council.
All Board and Commission members were contacted regarding possible interest in serving on
this Task Force. On April 9, 2012 Council received a written report and Task Force interest
forms from Marjorie Douville, Fire Civil Service Commission; James Gainsley, Board of Zoning
Appeals; and Justin Kaufman, Housing Authority. Staff is recommending appointment of these
commissioners to serve on the Task Force to begin reviewing nominations which have been
submitted for the Outstanding Citizen Award so that recommendations can be forwarded to
Council for consideration.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This program provides an opportunity for recognition of the contributions and accomplishments
of our citizens which supports our commitment of creating a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period March 25 through April 6, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
85.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
85.00
153.31TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
153.31
1,500.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEA.M.E. CONSTRUCTION CORP
30,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
28,500.00
3,730.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAE2S
1,602.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
5,332.00
68.70OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
68.70
2,439.80-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES INC
48,796.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
46,356.20
166.35WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS
166.35
155.40-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEAMERICAN MASONRY RESTORATION
3,108.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
2,952.60
78.88POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.88
186.25ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC
186.25
54.49GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
68.78PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
43.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
107.18ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.11VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
496.06
211.44HUMAN RESOURCES CITEANDERSON, SCOTT
211.44
580.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA
580.00
379.62BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
379.62
646.86GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
111.22ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
758.08
132.60IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESARC
132.60
97.90OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
97.90
34.97E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONEAT&T
34.97
213.70PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON I
213.70
568.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
568.50
75.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEALKE INDUSTRIES, ROBERT
75.00
156.51ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
156.51
40.91FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBLICK ART MATERIALS
40.91
302.81INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
302.81
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
137.03INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBOETTCHER, ANN
137.03
1,579.50SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,579.50
11.29-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBROWNELLS, INC
175.55RANGEOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
164.26
544.90PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
544.90
64.12-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEBUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY INC
1,281.55GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,217.43
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCAIN, DIXIE
150.00
2,364.37-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGECAPITAL CITY GLASS INC
47,287.30GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
44,922.93
253.29IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
253.29
597.52TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
597.52
60.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATCEAM
180.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
240.00
19.97SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
19.97
10,400.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,400.00
22.00-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
564.90ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
13.84HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
200.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
487.35HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
100.00IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
104.80IT G & A TELEPHONE
100.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
209.43GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
536.36GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER
15.75POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
3,999.20POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
112.45SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
244.89SCHOOL LIASON TRAINING
214.91ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
240.48COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAINING
35.02OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
540.76OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
492.35OPERATIONSTRAINING
425.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
60.92PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
25.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
139.75PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
142.95-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
67.50ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
69.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
188.62ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
39.54BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
12.84SPECIAL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,561.38HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.82YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
354.01BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
10.03PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
609.51PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
87.66ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
20.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
275.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
55.74BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
825.50INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,472.70CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
245.00CONCESSIONSTRAINING
35.26VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
119.53CABLE TV G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
73.44TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.50-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,821.42GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
30.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
430.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
175.00SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,159.57TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
18,411.78
140.95CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
140.95
125.95INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
125.95
15,768.09ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
15,768.09
166.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
166.95
5,720.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOMMERCIAL OFFICE INTERIORS LL
5,720.00
774.91BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
774.91
4,832.59ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICECOOL AIR MECHANICAL INC
1,850.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
6,682.59
144.82WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSCOUCH, GARY
144.82
31.53-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE KIDSTUFF
490.11SPECIAL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
458.58
4,214.50-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGECROSSROAD CONSTRUCTION INC
84,282.45GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
80,067.95
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
268.21SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
268.21
935.00CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCTC
935.00
88.60POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
88.60
344.35GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
885.89BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,230.24
2,550.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEDALE TILE COMPANY
51,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
48,450.00
267.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESDELEGARD TOOL CO
267.00
395.04WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIESDELI DOUBLE
395.04
133.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESDISCOUNT STEEL INC
133.81
5,676.50TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDLT SOLUTIONS INC
5,676.50
541.77SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
541.77
57.83-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDRM DIVERSAFAB
899.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
841.17
6,150.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEDYNAMIC ELECTRIC LLC
123,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
116,850.00
7,054.29WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSECOVA
7,054.29
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
117.08WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEDINA REALTY
117.08
125.64WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEDINA REALTY TITLE
125.64
48.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEDWARDS, CHRISTINA
48.00
212.21BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
212.21
37.33PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESELLINGSON, JUDY
37.33
625.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGEMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
625.00
2,642.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
2,642.47
13,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTEVERBRIDGE INC
13,000.00
3,000.00EXPLORERSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEXPLORER POST 505
3,000.00
867.79PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
387.96GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,255.75
18.38PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
18.38
30.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFEDEX
30.00
513.66-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEFRANSEN DECORATING INC
10,273.10GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
9,759.44
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
228.36ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
228.36
4,402.47EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,402.47
429.60HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGGOTHBERG, BRIDGET
429.60
305.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
305.00
816.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONGRAHAM, NATHAN
816.00
1,513.65AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
438.09WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
33.85REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,985.59
2,778.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
2,778.00
448.56EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
448.56
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGUNSTAD, MARK
225.00
1,308.66ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGHAMLINE UNIVERSITY
3,000.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
4,308.66
96.48WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHATLESTAD, TRACY
96.48
487.50BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEALEY, MICHAEL
487.50
1,000.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEHENKEMEYER PAINTING & FLOOR CO
20,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
19,000.00
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,300.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS AS
1,300.00
3,595.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
3,595.00
15,500.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOLLYWOOD PYROTECHNICS INC
15,500.00
7.61PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
7.61
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHRGREEN
600.00
194.13PAINTINGSMALL TOOLSHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
194.13
1,851.95PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
1,851.95
102.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIAEI
102.00
187,400.00SCHOOL DISTRICT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIND SCHOOL DIST #283
187,400.00
95.04WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEINDELCO
95.04
859.23IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
859.23
250.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESINTERLINE CASH SYSTEMS INC
250.00
1,210.78GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEINVER GROVE FORD
1,210.78
271.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSITE
271.00
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,098.15PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIZONE
1,098.15
84.08PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYJERRY'S HARDWARE
84.08
2,300.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTJOBSINMINNEAPOLIS.COM
2,300.00
82.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER
82.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
1,116.00ESCROWSKENNEDY & GRAVEN
1,980.00GREENSBORO HIA LEGAL SERVICES
321.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA LEGAL SERVICES
3,417.00
2,252.48ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEKERASOTES THEATRES
2,252.48
178,439.28GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
178,439.28
48.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKURDYUMOVA, YELENA
48.00
28,982.58UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
28,982.58
44.22INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
44.22
426.95POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESLOFFLER COMPANIES
426.95
80.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSM A H C O
80.00
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
104.97INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
104.97
456.69GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMACHINE ACCESSORIES CORP
456.69
301.89PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
301.89
4,831.31REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
4,831.31
16.40WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMEIER, DWAYNE
16.40
73.96WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
73.96
92.69PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
92.69
300.00POLICE G & A TRAININGMESCA
300.00
371.50PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
371.50
330.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
330.00
33.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMEYERS, OLIVER
33.15
1,565.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
1,565.00
862.32HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEMINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD A
862.32
151.62EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
151.62
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
780.20GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMINNESOTA CONWAY
780.20
50.00REILLY BUDGET LICENSESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
50.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
250.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA SHERIFFS' ASSOC
250.00
25.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSESMPCA
25.00
59.00REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMRPA
59.00
22,814.22PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
22,814.22
120.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMUNICIPALS
60.00IT G & A TRAINING
60.00CLERICALTRAINING
240.00
1,839.71PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING LLC
1,839.71
250.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
250.00
395.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGENAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SE
7,900.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
7,505.00
803.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
25.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.91BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
124.66VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.10GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.73WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,057.82
672.25GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO
672.25
1,275.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNESBITT, MELISSA
1,275.00
105.76ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
155.59HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
410.78RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
104.15ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
155.48FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
351.13EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
965.31POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
404.96OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
104.27INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
429.97ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
512.76PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
149.52PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
269.87ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
279.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
109.50ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
232.88WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
17.58REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
158.64VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
407.23WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
224.26SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
17.58SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
5,566.30
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNUMELIN, KATHY
162.50
108.82INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOBERSTAR, KATIE
108.82
35.36ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
76.81SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
107.74FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
37.58POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
178.65POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
30.88SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES
224.12INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
92.45PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
657.79ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
35.80WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,477.18
616.32INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
616.32
172.10EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
172.10
71.20INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS PROGRAM REVENUEORFIELD, LINDA
71.20
24,789.44TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEOSTVIG TREE INC
24,789.44
500.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEOVERHEAD DOOR CO
10,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
9,500.00
229.85INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
229.85
169.57INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
169.57
42.75GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESPARTS ASSOCIATES INC
42.75
48.00TENNISPROGRAM REVENUEPEACOCK, MICHELE
48.00
917.59COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
917.59
483.08PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
483.08
160.00CLERICALTRAININGPLEAA
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
160.00
697.50INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
697.50
2,873.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
2,873.57
75.65-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPOTTERS INDUSTRIES INC
1,251.65PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,176.00
874.50DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRISM EXPRESS MANAGER
874.50
1,419.85PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQ3 CONTRACTING
357.18WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,777.03
64.15POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
64.15
2,488.20FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,100.11REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,002.86SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,591.17
74.38POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
10.94PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
85.32
2,028.07WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
2,028.07
104.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSAURER, MARTI
104.00
422.94BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
422.94
132.06HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ
132.06
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
92.86INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
92.86
35,349.01CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
1,555.80PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
598.01SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
37,502.82
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEITZ, DOUGLAS
150.00
968.17PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLSSEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE
968.17
100.32GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
100.32
160.91BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
160.91
4,504.34TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENTSPECTRA LOGIC CORP
4,504.34
410.07BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
410.07
2,397.23ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
10,844.52PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,241.75
4,708.08AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESST CROIX REC CO
4,708.08
10,000.00YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESST LOUIS PARK FAST PITCH
10,000.00
350.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEST PAUL LINOLEUM & CARPET CO
7,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
6,650.00
244.40POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
244.40
617.14ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
617.14
361.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
361.07
254.79ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
254.79
10.58POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
10.58
7.74ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
7.74
294.45PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
15,033.79GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
15,328.24
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
42.66ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
51.90HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.51COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
39.20IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
33.10ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
64.49FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
106.69COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
113.79POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
72.21OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
54.34INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.99PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
53.86ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
65.00ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.05WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.97REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.60HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,954.29EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,846.96
1,950.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGETHURNBECK STEEL FABRICATION IN
39,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
37,050.00
1,275.30WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTREE TRUST
2,200.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,475.30
116.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
672.10TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
788.96
150.58PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
150.58
1,472.80SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
1,472.80
785.50-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGETWIN CITY TILE & MARBLE CO
15,710.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
14,924.50
60.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
60.00
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
522.14UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
672.14
240.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
240.00
800.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA/CPHEO
800.00
9.88WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9.88
1,265.17VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
74.34COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
194.81TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,534.32
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWVICTOR, JUDY & JEFF
1,000.00
927.10WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
927.10
700.00-SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEVISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL
14,000.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,300.00
1,522.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
1,522.40
113.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSWATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
113.00
2,300.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSWOLD, SCOTT
2,300.00
1,136.94ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
1,136.94
17.44STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
17.44
622.70HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESYOUNGBLOOD LUMBER CO
622.70
217.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
217.05
500.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEZINTL INC
10,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
9,500.00
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
4/10/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:17:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
4/6/2012 -3/25/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
Report Totals 1,252,258.40
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4e
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
Westwood Room, St. Louis Park City Hall
St. Louis Park, MN
Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Justin Kaufman
Commissioner DuFour left the meeting at 5:57 p.m.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Suzanne Metzger
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for February, 2012
The Board minutes of February 8, 2012 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Review of Proposed Use and Approval of the Acceptance of the 2012 Capital Fund
Program Allocation, Resolution No. 613
Ms. Schlegel explained that the HA will receive an allocation of $163,889 in CFP
funds for 2012, and proposed the funds be used for continuing the interior
modernization of Hamilton House. 2012 funds would be used to complete elevator
renovations, third and fourth floor common area renovation, and for replacement of
first floor apartment decks, along with siding replacement on two scattered site
homes. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve Resolution No. 613, Resolution of
the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park to Accept the 2012 Capital Fund Program
Grant. Commissioner Kaufman seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
b. Approval of Annual Utility Allowances for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and
Public Housing Programs, Resolution Nos. 614 and 615
Ms. Schlegel stated that HUD requires that the Section 8 and Public Housing
program utility allowances be analyzed annually. This year, electric rates increased
15% and gas rates decreased 7%; water and sewer rates increased slightly, and trash
rates remain unchanged. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve Resolution No.
614, Resolution of the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Amending the Section 8
Utility Allowance Schedule, and Resolution No. 615, Resolution of the Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park, Utility Allowances for Public Housing Scattered Site
Program. Commissioner Kaufman seconded the motions, and the motions passed 3-0.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes of March 14, 2012
c. Public Housing and Section 8 Collection Loss Write-Off, Resolution No. 616
Ms. Klesk presented the collection loss write-off report, stating the amount for
Section 8 for the time period April 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 is $22,876,
and for Public Housing, $19,267.83. The large amounts are attributed to the HA’s
21-month transitional fiscal year, and two exceptionally large claims, both of which
have been reported to the authorities for further investigation and possible criminal
charges. Commissioner Kaufman moved to approve Resolution No. 616 of the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Designating Damages, Unpaid
Rents, and Other Charges as Collection Losses, Public Housing and Section 8
Programs. Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
d. Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) Certification Fiscal Year End
December 31, 2011
Ms. Schnitker explained the SEMAP management assessment system utilized by
HUD to annually measure the performance of housing agencies that administer the
Section 8 rental assistance program. Based on staff examination of the HA’s
records, systems and files, the HA meets the highest threshold for all 14 indicators
and will receive a score of 104%, retaining its high performer status.
e. Project Based Housing Choice Voucher Program, Wayside House, Inc. – Update
Ms. Schnitker provided the Commissioners with an update on the current status of
the HA’s existing contract with Wayside House Inc. to administer 15 units of project
based Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance and 5 units of
Shelter+Care. Commissioner DuFour expressed her desire to attend the upcoming
meeting with HA/City staff and Wayside Board representatives scheduled for
Monday, March 19th.
f. Training Resources to Attain Long Term Success (TRAILS) 2011 Annual Report
Ms. Schnitker stated that the TRAILS 2011 Annual Report is informational only.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – March, 2012
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – March, 2012
2. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Kaufman moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Courtney
seconded the motion. The motion passed 2-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open Public Hearing, take testimony, and then close the Public Hearing. Motion to
Adopt First Reading of Ordinance establishing the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 and to set
Second Reading for May 7, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to move forward with the creation of a Housing Improvement Area
for the Westwood Villa Condominium Association? If the Council desires the Public Hearing
and adoption of the 1st reading may be continued at a future meeting.
The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing
improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made
and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the
properties within the area. The fee is essentially a special assessment against the properties that
would appear on each properties real estate tax statement. The City adopted an HIA policy in
2001, and has established six HIA’s. The Westwood Villa Association Inc. HIA proposal meets
the intent of city policy.
BACKGROUND:
The Westwood Villa Condominium Association is requesting via petition that the City consider
lending monies to make repairs to their building. In March 2012, petitions requesting the City
Council hold a Public Hearing to consider establishing an HIA were received by the City.
Petitions were signed by 58%, or 38 of the 66 owners, plus one petition from the Association
owned unit. Of the six established HIAs only one association, Sungate One with 20 units had a
higher percentage of supporting petitions. No owners have submitted written objections to the
HIA. If the City Council chooses to establish an HIA, state law provides a 45-day veto period
following adoption of the ordinance during which time the condo owners may submit written
objections to the HIA. If 45% or more of the owners file a written objection to the HIA
ordinance – the ordinance does not become effective.
At the April 9, 2012 study session the Council received the attached report on the Westwood
Villa Condominium Association’s HIA proposal and request for a Public Hearing. The
following additional information is provided to address issues responding to the Council’s
discussion. The Condo Association has also been asked to be prepared to respond to these
questions Monday night.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Needed Improvements and Project Costs
• Physical Needs. The Board and members are aware that the level of improvements needed at
the building is significant. They have been working on what needs to be done and how to
pay for improvements for several years. Some of the proposed improvements are a result of
orders issued by the City and State. The City’s Inspection Dept. has written a correction
notice for the bathroom venting system; and, the State has mandated elevators updates to be
completed by 2012. In addition to these required improvements, the roof, mansard roof
siding and balconies are basically original and in need of repair. Replacement of the chiller
system will ensure an operable heating and cooling system. The lack of air conditioning in a
3-story condo building not only negatively impacts the comfort and health of residents but
impacts the property value and the ability of owners to sell their condo units.
• Need to protect investment. In addition to making the physical property more marketable,
the improvements will help ensure that FHA financing continues to be an option for potential
buyers at Westwood Villa. If improvements are not made the FHA financing option could be
lost. Availability of FHA financing greatly increases the number of potentially qualified
buyers. This is especially true for potential buyers and owners of modest means.
• Cost. The estimated cost of improvements, $1,953,493, is a conservatively high estimate –
the Association’s construction manager anticipates the final construction bids to come in
slightly less and plans to reduce the contingency cost to 20% when bids are known; a savings
of approximately $150,000, or an average of $2,270 per unit.
Payment Impact on Owners. The association has limited options to finance the proposed
improvements. They cannot secure bank financing except at high interest rates and very short
duration. If not for the HIA, the Association will need to pay for the improvements by imposing
an internal special assessment of its own. Each owner would need to come up with money to
pay their assessment over a few months instead of over 20 years as would be the case with the
establishment of the HIA. This would be much more onerous for owners than the HIA fee with
its more affordable payment. The Board believes that a large internal special assessment would
put modest income owners at greater risk of going into foreclosure than the more affordable HIA
fee.
Housing costs at Westwood Villa with the additional average monthly fee of $250 are still likely
to be lower than other housing options for most of the owners. Nonetheless, the $250 monthly
HIA fee may be a financial burden for some owners.
Deferral of HIA Fee. The City provides special assessment hardship deferrals to low-income
seniors and low-income persons with disabilities. Low-income owners repay the fee upon sale
of their unit. Questionnaires were distributed to all owners and five have indicated they are
eligible and would apply. Other options to assist owners that experience financial stress can be
considered. It is important to note that only the deferrals for low-income seniors and persons
with disabilities have been offered to owners in the previous HIAs.
Property Management. As of April 1, 2012, the Board contracted with a new management
firm, Multiventures Properties Inc. Multiventures was the property management company that
worked with Westmoreland Hills during their 2008 HIA process, so is familiar with the process.
A third party, Reserve Advisors, did the Reserve Study and Ambe Ltd. prepared the scope of
work for improvements.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
City Risks. The firewalls that reduce the City’s financial risk are significant and described in
detail in the City Issues section of the attached staff report. To the knowledge of staff, the city’s
legal and financial consultants, there have been no situations where the number of foreclosures in
a complex has negatively impacted repayment of the HIA fees. In foreclosure events, tax
liabilities including special assessments, must be paid by any party that takes ownership of, or
purchases the unit. In this arena, HIA fees have been treated the same as any other special
assessments. If the unit becomes the property of a bank, the bank is responsible to pay the
property taxes, special assessments and HIA fees.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council is ready to proceed with the Westwood Villa HIA and approves the first
reading of the ordinance Monday night, the following schedule is anticipated:
May 7, 2012 2nd Reading of HIA Ordinance
June 21, 2012 Veto Period Ends
Effective Date of Ordinance
July 20, 2012 Prepayment Period Ends
Hardship Deferment Applications
August 2012 Sale of Bonds
2013 Fee will appear on property tax statements beginning 2013
If the City Council chooses to continue the Public Hearing or postpone the First Reading, these
dates would need to be adjusted.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project costs, legal and financial advisor fees incurred by the city are included in the project
budget. The city would receive an administrative fee of one-half of one percent of the project
cost, or $10,925.
The combination of funding, bonds and internal funds, will alleviate the concern that city reserve
funds be tied up for a twenty year period and will ensure that city has sufficient dollars available
for other more immediate needs. It will also allow the city to generate interest income.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with Vision’s commitment to ensure a diversity of well-maintained
housing and affordable single-family home ownership.
Attachments: April 9, 2012 Council Report
Ordinance
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Meeting Date: April 9, 2012
Agenda Item #9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on request by Westwood Villa Condominium Association to Establish Westwood Villa
Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on this
project. The Westwood Villa Association is requesting that the City Council hold a Public
Hearing on April 16, 2012 to consider establishing the Westwood Villa HIA and imposing fees.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing
improvements. The City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established six HIA’s to date
(see attachment). In 2009, the state legislature extended the HIA statute through June 2013.
BACKGROUND:
Westwood Villa Condominium Association is
located at 2200 Nevada Ave S.
• The single, 3-story building has 66 units.
• It was built in 1970 and converted to condos
in 1973.
• 88% of the units are owner occupied.
• The 2012 median estimated market value of
the units is $68,900.
• The 2012 estimated market value of units
range from $61,000 - $97,800.
A. History
The Westwood Villa Association has been working on a potential improvement project for
several years. The board had a physical needs assessment and financial plan review known as a
Reserve Study conducted in 2008 to provide a background for making decisions related to
property improvement. The Board along with its management company and a consultant began
the process of determining the scope of work, identifying contractors and communicating with
membership.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
In November 2010 the association submitted a preliminary application for the HIA and by spring
of 2011 the association was planning to distribute petitions to have the HIA established. The
scope of improvements was finalized in February 2012.
The Board has determined that while costly, the work needs to be done and further delay of the
work will only result in further deterioration of the building. In February petitions were
distributed petitions to owners requesting that the Council hold a Public Hearing to consider
establishing the HIA and imposing fees. As required by state statute and the City’s HIA policy a
majority of owners, 38 of the 66 owners, or 58% of the owners signed petitions requesting the
Public Hearing.
B. Analysis of Application
The City’s policy requires that only associations where the median unit value is less than or
equal to MN Housing’s First Time Home Buyers limit of $298,000 (2012) may apply. The
median condo value of $68,900 is within policy guidelines.
The following analysis describes how the current proposal meets the HIA policy and intentions
of the statute. The Association’s preliminary application has been reviewed by staff and the
City’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates.
1. The Association contracted with a third party to conduct a reserve study.
In 2008, the Association had a reserve study conducted by Reserve Advisors, Inc. The study
includes a physical needs assessment, thirty year capital improvement plan and a financial
analysis of the existing and projected financial situation. The scope of work is consistent
with the recommendations of the reserve study. The funding plan indicates that projected
association fee increases will meet operational needs and the Association will be capable of
funding future improvements with their reserves.
2. Project Costs are reasonable and eligible for use of the HIA.
To ensure the proposed scope and cost was the most responsible possible, the Association
hired consultants to assist with evaluating the needed repairs. These consultants include
Ambe Ltd and M & E Engineering, Inc., Consulting Engineers. The Board and consultants
worked through winter of 2011/2012 to refine the scope of work and budget.
The proposed scope of work is estimated at $2,185,000.00 and includes the following basic
improvements which are eligible uses for the HIA and are noted in the following table.
• The Decks are interconnected with the mansard roof and thus, the roof. The decks have
shifted from their concrete supports, there is rotting wood and holes in the base beams
and railings, and other deterioration. When the base supports and beams are replaced,
individual decks and railing will be brought up to current building code.
• The Flat Roof needs to be replaced. The original singly ply rubber membrane is in poor
condition – it is shrinking towards the middle and can cause leaking in the future. Water
has gotten behind the mansard roof and leaking has occurred.
• The Mansard Roof is leaking and causing moisture intrusion. The best way to connect the
roof and the mansard is to replace them at the same time.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
• Bathroom Vents on the roof need to be replaced to allow proper ventilation through each
unit. These are on the roof and best replaced at the same time as the roof. City
Inspections has written correction notice for this work. .
• Elevator hydraulic jack needs to be replaced and brought up to State Code.
• Mold Removal on the garage pipes is required for contractors to work on the pipes.
• The Chiller system is the original, and each year there are significant repair costs to
keeping this chiller running. The “chiller” scope includes removal, purchase and
replacement of the roof mounted chiller, the evaporator tube bundle in the boiler room,
the two (2) roof mounted cooling air units, the hydronic piping insulation and valve
replacement in the garage, and all installation costs.
• Replace pipe risers. This piping is part of the hydronic system that distributes cooling
and heating water from the boiler room to the fan-coil units in each of the condo units.
Replacement will reduce condensation and make the system more efficient for both
cooling and heating.
• Repair Garage Floor. The garage floor is in disrepair.
• Spa room is currently unused space with a locked door. The spa will be filled in, the
piping removed, and the electrical wiring removed. Removing the spa will allow the
Westwood Villa residents to decide how to use this space in the future.
Table 1. Westwood Villa – Renovation Scope and Budget
Decks/Soffits/Roof $684,200
Decks $297,200
Soffit - Mansard roof $136,000
Flat roof $251,000
Bathroom Vents $66,000
Bathroom fans and balancing dampers $66,000
Elevator $53,259
Hydraulic jack replacement $28,259
Drain, sump and pump $15,000
Elevator ventilation $10,000
Mold Removal $59,960
Mold Removal garage piping $59,960
Chiller System $309,000
Chiller $51,106
Pipe Riser Replacement $237,600
Garage Floor $60,968
Spa Removal $31,700
Project Total without contingency $1,502,687
Estimated Contingency 30% $450,806
Total Project Costs $1,953,493
The next table shows the total project cost, which is estimated to be $2,185,000. The project
costs includes the cost of issuing bonds, financing costs, the city’s administrative fee and the
city’s cost of legal and financial advisors. The association’s soft costs include consultants as
noted in the following table.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Table 2. Westwood Total Project Costs
Project Use of Funds Budget
Total Construction Costs $1,953,493
Underwriter's Discount for Bond Issuance $32,775
Cost of Issuance (Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor) $36,000
Rounding for Bond Issuance $1,598
Capitalized Interest $47,459
City Admin Fee (1/2 1 percent project cost) $10,925
Soft Costs $102,750
Total Soft and Loan Costs $231,507
TOTAL $2,185,000
Breakdown of Soft Costs
Construction Management Fee $24,250
Mechanical Engineer $55,000
Chiller Engineer $13,000
Legal $7,000
Financial Advisor $3,000
Total Soft Costs 102,750
3. The HIA Meets City Goals
The proposed improvements meet the City goals in that they will upgrade the existing
housing stock in a neighborhood, stabilize the owner-occupancy level within the association,
and preserve existing affordable housing stock. The use of the HIA to assist with property
improvements is consistent with VISION direction to preserve existing housing stock and
affordable ownership opportunities.
4. The Association’s Process, Timeline and Communication Exceed Statutory Requirements.
The Association’s communication regarding the HIA began in 2010. The Association has
continued to ensure owners have been aware of the status of the proposed project, and that
residents have been afforded opportunities to provide input. The relatively small size of this
complex, 66 units in one building also contributed to word-of-mouth communication.
On March 20, 2012 the City Clerk received signed petitions from 38 Westwood owners
requesting the Council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA and impose fee.
Petitions have been signed by 58% of the owners, which is higher than other HIAs. City
policy and State Statute requires that 50% of the owners sign petitions. Prior to submitting
the petitions the association completed the following steps which meet statutory
requirements.
a. On November 3, 2010 at the request of the Association, city staff attended an Association
meeting to discuss the HIA as a tool to assist with financing improvements.
b. Throughout 2011, in January, February, March, May, June, September and October
Association Board meetings were held and the improvements discussed. From December
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
2011 through February the Board met regularly to review findings, communicate status
with residents and take input.
c. During January 2012, the board met with consultants and interested owners to finalize the
project scope. During this time the Board also decided to seek proposals to replace the
existing management company based on owner input.
d. On February 15 and February 23 the Association conducted a full membership meeting to
inform owners of the final proposed project. Meetings were held on different nights of
the week to ensure owners could attend.
5. The HIA Financing is Necessary for This Project.
The Westwood Villa Association applied for credit from Signature and Klein Banks as well
as M &I Bank. Their requests were denied based on insufficient income for the amount of
credit requested, the type of collateral was insufficient and the exposure amount was
considered too large.
The HIA is designed to be a last resort finance tool for associations. It is also designed to
address obstacles some associations confront when applying for financing – generally
associations are limited by their lack of collateral, and fund larger projects through short term
assessments to owners. The HIA provides more affordable payment options than association
special assessments, which generally are paid in a short time frame of a few months. The
HIA fee would average $242 per month, per unit. This payment will still allow association
fees to increase gradually to ensure adequate funds for operation and long term maintenance.
6. Fees and Loan Term.
The average fee per unit will be $33,106 with an annual average cost per unit of $2,909
including interest, payable over 20 years. The range of the unit fees is from $26,812 to
$48,573. Ehlers and Associates have suggested estimating a conservative interest rate of
5.50%, which may be decreased when bonds are actually sold and the city’s interest rate is
known. The following table outlines the loan terms.
Table 3. Loan Terms
Total Loan Amount $2,185,000
Term (years) 20
Interest Rate 5.50%
Average Annual Debt Service at 105% $191,981
Total Units 66
Cost/Unit – Annual (Average) $2,909
Cost/Unit - Monthly (Average) $242
Average Assessment - Per/Unit if prepaid $33,106
If the HIA is approved, owners would begin making payments with the 2013 real estate tax
payments. Owners will have the option to prepay the fee and avoid interest payments over
the 20 year term. The percentage of prepayments for the existing HIAs has been: forty
percent for the Cedar Trails HIA; twenty-five percent for the Sungate One; sixteen percent
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
for the Wolfe Lake; and seven percent for the Westmoreland Hills HIA, twenty-one percent
for the Sunset Ridge HIA and twenty-seven percent for the Greensboro HIA. Preliminary
estimates based on completed owner questionnaires indicate that less than ten percent of the
owners are considering pre-paying the fee if the HIA is approved.
7. Association's Desired Method of Fee Imposition
The newly enacted legislation amending the HIA State Statute requires that if the fee be
imposed “on a basis other than the tax capacity or square footage of the housing unit, the
Council must make a finding that the alternative basis for the fee is more fair and
reasonable.” The Westwood Hill fee meets this standard - all common building areas
improvements would be assessed to each unit based on the percentage of building common
area ownership, which is based on square feet of units.
C. Homeowner risks and issues
Financial burden and debt load of owners. An HIA loan’s relatively low interest rate and
long term provides modest income homeowners an affordable means to pay for the
improvements.
1. The Board conducted a survey of owners to determine the number of low income seniors
and low income disabled persons that might be eligible for the hardship special
assessment deferral. The hardship deferral allows deferred payment until the sale or title
transfer of their unit for qualifying owner/residents. Five owners have indicated they
may be eligible for the deferred assessment.
2. Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPHS) provides financial
counseling at no cost to St. Louis Park residents and owners have received information to
access this service.
3. There are three units in foreclosure – the bank and investor owners of these units will be
obligated to pay the fee, just as they are obligated to pay real estate taxes on their
properties.
4. By funding the HIA with a combination of bonds and internal funding, owners could
have more flexibility in paying off the assessment in the future.
The high cost of this project is due to the poor condition of major building components: roof,
mansard roof siding; decks, the A.C. / mechanical system and elevator, plus the contingency.
The costs are spread over only 66 units, so the per unit fee is high. The estimated market
values and sale values of condo units has been hit hard by the downturn in the housing
market. Staff has done an analysis of the market values, fee to unit value, and the difference
of current owners purchase price and current values, and foreclosures (3). Forty units are
currently valued at less than the sale price paid by the owners, and despite this, over half of
these 40 owners support the petition to move forward with the HIA loan.
City Issues
1. How best to fund HIA loans.
This project is proposed to be funded like the Greensboro HIA with a mix of internal
funding and bonds. This funding combination allows owners to prepay their assessment
and it ties up very little of the city reserves. If the timing of the Westwood Villa project
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
stays on track, it will be possible for the city to do a single bond issuance for both the
Greensboro HIA and Westwood Hills HIA, which will reduce the cost of issuance.
2. The firewalls to reduce the City’s financial risk are significant and include:
a. Repayment of the loan is made through owner’s real estate tax payments.
b. In foreclosure events, tax liabilities including special assessments, must be paid by
any party that purchases the unit. In this arena, HIA fees have been treated the same
as special assessments.
c. There is 105% debt coverage.
d. The development agreement allows the City to obtain assignment of association’s
assets. The agreement also can require associations to pay on behalf of delinquent
members if payments are not made.
e. The delinquency rate of existing HIA fees is low and consistent with the citywide
property tax delinquency rate of less than 1%.
f. Finally, the association, as required by statute conducted a reserve study of capital
needs and long term financials. The financial plan has been reviewed by staff and the
city’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates to ensure long term feasibility of
financing future improvements.
g. The Development Agreement provides additional contractual conditions to ensure
financial stability of associations. The agreement will require that the association:
• Use professional property management.
• Submit annual audits and update financial plans to demonstrate capability for
ongoing maintenance & operations.
• Demonstrate increases in monthly association dues to build reserves to a
sustainable level.
3. On-going maintenance of townhomes and condos a critical community need.
There are roughly 2700 townhome and condo units in St. Louis Park. The majority of them
are over 20 years old. For the strength of our neighborhoods and the whole community, it is
important that these homes be well maintained. Deteriorating housing would be a huge risk
for the community if allowed to happen.
NEXT STEPS:
April 16, 2012 Public Hearing at Council Meeting
May 7, 2012 2nd Reading of HIA Ordinance
June 21, 2012 Veto Period Ends
Effective Date of Ordinance
July 20, 2012 Prepayment Period Ends
Hardship Deferment Applications
August 2012 Sale of Bonds
2013 Fee will appear on property tax statements beginning 2013.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff will be reviewing using a combination of bonds and internal funds to fund this project.
Using bonds will alleviate the concern that city reserve funds be tied up for a twenty year period
and will ensure that city has sufficient dollars available for other more immediate needs. While
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 11
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
using internal funds will allow owners the ability to pay-off the balance of their fee at any time.
Use of internal funds also generates interest revenue on the internal funds used.
The project fund covers costs incurred by the city; the city would receive an administrative fee of
one-half one percent of the project cost, or $10,925. The legal and financial advisor fees
incurred by the city are included in projects budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with the VISION’s commitment to ensure a diversity of well-
maintained housing and affordable single-family home ownership.
Attachments: City HIA Policy
Summary of Established HIAs (2012)
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 12
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA POLICY
1. PURPOSE
1.01 The purpose of this policy is to establish the City's position relating to the use of Housing
Improvement Area (HIA) financing for private housing improvements. This policy shall
be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting HIA financing.
1.02 The City shall have the option of amending or waiving sections of this policy when
determined necessary or appropriate.
2. AUTHORITY
2.01 The City of St. Louis Park has the authority to establish HIAs under 1994 Minnesota
Laws, Chapter 587, Article 9, Section 22 through 3 1, and extended in 2000, M.S.
428A.21
2.02 Within a HIA, the City has the authority to:
A. Make housing improvements
B. Levy fees and assessments
C. Issue bonds to pay for improvements
2.03 The City Council has the authority to review each HIA petition, which includes scope of
improvements, association’s finances, long term financial plan, and membership support.
3. ELIGIBLE USES OF HIA FINANCING
3.01 As a matter of adopted policy, the City of St. Louis Park will consider using HIA
financing to assist private property owners only in those circumstances in which the
proposed private projects address one or more of the following goals:
A. To promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight
and/or the upgrading of the existing housing stock in a neighborhood.
B. To correct housing or building code violations as identified by the City Building
Official.
C. To maintain or obtain FHA mortgage eligibility for a particular condominium or
townhome association or single family home within the designated HIA.
D. To increase or prevent the loss of the tax base of the City in order to ensure the
long-term ability of the City to provide adequate services for its residents.
E. To stabilize or increase the owner-occupancy level within a neighborhood or
association.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 13
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
F. To meet other uses of public policy, as adopted by the City of St. Louis Park from time
to time, including promotion of quality urban design, quality architectural design, energy
conservation, decreasing the capital and operating costs of local government, etc.
4. HIA APPROVAL CRITERIA
4.01 All HIA financed through the City of St. Louis Park should meet the following minimum
approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria would
automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights on the part of any
association.
A. The project must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinances, or required changes to the Plan and Ordinances must be under active
consideration by the City at the time of approval.
B. The HIA financing shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions,
debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies.
C. The project should meet one or more of the above adopted HIA Goals of the City of
St. Louis Park.
D. The term of the HIA should be the shortest term possible while still making the annual
fee affordable to the association members. The term of any bonds or other debt incurred
for the area should mature in 20 years or less.
E. The association in a HIA should provide adequate financial guarantees to ensure the
repayment of the HIA financing and the performance of the administrative requirements
of the development agreement. Financial guarantees may include, but are not limited to
the pledge of the association's assets including reserves, operating funds and/or property.
F. The proposed project, including the use of HIA financing, should be supported by a
majority of the owners within the association. The association should include the results
of a membership vote along with the petitions to create the area.
G. The Association must have adopted a financial plan that provides for the Association
to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements within the Association
and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, which does
not rely upon the subsequent use of the HIA tool.
H. HIA financial assistance is last resort financing and should not be provided to projects
that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of HIA financing.
Evidence that the association has sought other financing for the project should be
provided and should include an explanation and verification that an assessment by the
association is not feasible along with letters from private lenders or other evidence
indicating a lack of financing options.
I. The homeowner's association must be willing to enter into a development agreement,
which may include, but is not limited to, the following terms:
establishment of a reserve fund
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 14
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
staffing requirements
annual reporting requirements
conditions of disbursement
required dues increases
notification to new owners of levied fees
J. The improvements financed through the HIA should primarily be exterior
improvements and other improvements integral to the operation of the project, e.g.
boilers. In the case of a homeowner's association, the improvements should be restricted
to common areas. The improvements must be of a permanent nature.
The association must have a third party conduct a facility needs assessment to determine
and prioritize the scope of improvements.
K. HIA financing should not be provided to those projects that fail to meet good public
policy criteria as determined by the Council, including: poor project quality; projects that
are not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, redevelopment plans, and the
City policies; projects that provide no significant improvement to the neighborhood
and/or the City; and projects that do not provide a significant increase in the tax base
and/or prevent the loss of tax base.
L. The financial structure of the project should receive a favorable review by the City's
Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel. The review will include a review of performance
and level of outstanding debt of previous HIAs.
M. The average market value of units in the association should not exceed the maximum
home purchase price for existing homes under the State’s first time homebuyer program.
(In 2001, the metro amount is $175,591)
N. The association is to submit an application along with application fee as set from time
to time by resolution of the City Council.
Adopted by the City of St. Louis Park on the 16th day of July 2001.
St. Louis Park HIA Summary - 2012
City Council Meeting ofApril 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 15
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 16
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE WESTWOOD VILLA ASSOCIATION
INC. HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which
housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole
or in part from fees imposed within the area.
1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area
policy on July 16, 2001.
1.03. The City has determined a need to establish the Westwood Villa Association Inc.
Housing Improvement Area as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to
property known as the "Westwood Villa Condominium” all in accordance with the Housing
Improvement Area policy.
1.04. The City has consulted with the Westwood Villa Association (the “Condominium
Association”) and with residents in the proposed Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area regarding the establishment of the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this
ordinance.
Section 2. Findings.
2.01. The Council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at
least 50 percent of the housing units within the proposed Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding
establishment of such housing improvement area.
2.02. The Council has on April 16, 2012, conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in
accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all
persons, including owners of property within the proposed Westwood Villa Association Inc.
Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard.
2.03. The Council finds that, without establishment of the Westwood Villa Association
Inc. Housing Improvement Area, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be
made by the condominium association for, or the housing unit owners in, the Westwood Villa
Association.
2.04. The Council further finds that designation of the Westwood Villa Association Inc.
Housing Improvement Area is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 17
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
2.05. The Council further finds that by Resolution No. _______adopted on the date
hereof, the City has provided full disclosure of public expenditures, loans, bonds, or other financing
arrangements in connection with the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area,
and has determined that the Westwood Villa Association will contract for the Housing
Improvements.
2.06. The City will be the implementing entity for the Westwood Villa Association Inc.
Housing Improvement Area and the improvement fee.
2.07. The Council finds that the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement
Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area Policy (listed
as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners
support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. The Condominium Association
presented evidence to the Council adequate to demonstrate that these criteria were met, including
presentation to the Council of the petitions described in 2.01 above.
Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined.
3.01. The Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area is hereby defined
as the area of the City legally described in Exhibit A.
3.02. The Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area contains 66
housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, along with garage units and common
areas.
Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined.
4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance and the Westwood Villa Association Housing Inc.
Improvement Area, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the following improvements to
housing units, garages, and common areas within the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area:
Building Exterior:
• Replace flat roof, replace mansard roof and replace decks.
• Replace the chiller system including removal, purchase and replacement of the roof
mounted chiller, the evaporator tube bundle in the boiler room, the two roof mounted
cooling air units, the hydronic piping insulation and valve replacement in the garage.
• Garage repair: mold removal on the garage pipes and replace the pipe risers from the
garage to the fan coils in each unit. Repair garage floor.
• Replace Bathroom Vents on the roof
Interior:
• Replace elevator hydraulic jack and bring elevator to state code.
• Fill in spa, remove piping and electrical wiring
4.02. Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include:
(a) all costs of architectural and engineering services in connection with the
activities described in Section 4.01;
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 18
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
(b) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the Westwood
Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area; and
(c) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Housing
Improvement Act; and
(d) interest on the internal loan as described in Sections 5.04 and 6.01.
Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee.
5.01. The City may, by resolution adopted in accordance with the petition, hearing and
notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units
within the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area, at a rate, term or amount
sufficient to produce revenues required to finance the construction of the Housing Improvements
(hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in this Section.
5.02. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on
the square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit, all as prescribed in the
Declaration Establishing Westwood Villa Condominium.
5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater
than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable.
5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in
accordance with the terms specified in the resolution imposing the fee.
5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice
of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing
Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement
Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution.
Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan and Bonds.
6.01. At any time after a contract with the Condominium Association for construction of
all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the
period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has begun as described in
Section 5.04 hereof, the Council may begin disbursement to the Condominium Association of the
proceeds of an internal loan (the “Loan”) of available City funds in the principal amounts necessary
to finance a portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together
with administrative costs.
6.02. In addition to the Loan, at any time after the period for prepayment without interest
of the Housing Improvement Fee has ended, the City may issue its bonds secured by Housing
Improvement Fees, as authorized pursuant to Section 428A.16 of the Act, in a principal amount
necessary to finance the portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements not financed through the
Loan.
Section 7. Annual Reports.
7.01. On March 1, 2013, and each March 1 thereafter until there are no longer any
outstanding obligations issued under the Act in connection with the Westwood Villa Association
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 19
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Inc. Housing Improvement Area, Westwood Villa Association (and any successor in interest) shall
submit to the City Clerk a copy of the condominium association's audited financial statements.
7.02. The Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to
the City any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into
between that entity and the City.
Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections.
8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Westwood Villa Association Inc.
Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the
proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 45
percent of the housing units within the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement
Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and
notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection.
Section 9. Amendment.
9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the Council upon compliance with the public
hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act.
Section 10. Effective Date.
10.1. This ordinance shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof.
Read, approved and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of St. Louis Park on May 7, 2012.
First Reading April 16, 2012
Second Reading May 7, 2012
Date of Publication May 17, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect June 21, 2012
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012.
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 20
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
EXHIBIT A
Legal description
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 21
Subject: Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a major amendment to the Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2), subject to conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council find that the proposed PUD amendment meets the requirements for
approval and that it is consistent with the goals of the PUD ordinance which include higher
design standards and efficient uses of land?
BACKGROUND:
Bader Development proposes several small revisions to plans for the 58-unit apartment
development at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard. City Council approved the PUD for e2 on January
17, 2012. Since this application so recently was reviewed and approved, this staff report
highlights the basic facts about the development and focuses on the changes proposed to the plan
that require City review.
The revised design includes the following changes:
• Increases the bedroom count from 62 to 65 bedrooms without changing the number of units.
• Moves a patio planned on the roof of the 4th floor to the roof of the 5th floor.
• Adds floor area to the 5th floor by enclosing the northwest corner of the building.
• Converts some interior building areas from common space to leasable area.
• Eliminates storage area on the 1st floor, which slightly reduces the ground floor area.
• Adds one parking stall to the underground garage.
The Developer met with neighbors regarding the revised proposal on March 19, 2012, at City
Hall. Four neighbors attended. No concerns about the revisions were raised at the meeting.
Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 4, 2012. No residents attended the hearing.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD Major Amendment.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
ZONING ANALYSIS:
Although the degree of the changes to the e2 development is relatively small, the zoning code
classifies any of the following changes as major amendments to PUD:
1. Changes in approved use classifications;
2. Changes to the approved final plat;
3. Increases in residential density, leasable floor area, building height, and/or required parking;
4. Reductions in usable open space;
5. Modifications to section requirements;
6. Any changes that are anticipated to result in off-site impacts.
The Zoning Compliance Table on the following page summarizes the applicable rules for the
property and highlights changes between the previous design and the revised design.
Zoning Compliance Table. (Changes shown in red.)
Factor Allowed/Required Approved Proposed Met?
Use High Density Multiple
Family Residence
58-unit apartment
building
58-unit apartment
building
Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres, unless it is a
project of superior design
or achieves greater
compliance with
comprehensive plan goals
and policies
0.773 acres 0.773 acres Yes
Density 75 units/acre with a PUD 75 units/acre 75 units/acre Yes
Height 6 stories or 75 feet 5 stories, 60 feet 5 stories, 60 feet Yes
Shadows Up to 60 days 0 days 34 days Yes
Off-Street
Parking
65 stalls
(1 stall per bedroom)
108 stalls, including 22
stalls designated for
Ellipse on Excelsior
commercial use
109 stalls, including 22
stalls designated for
Ellipse on Excelsior
commercial use
Yes
Front Yard None required with a
PUD
10 feet
(4 feet to stairs/
accessible ramp)
10 feet
(4 feet to stairs/
accessible ramp)
Yes
Side Yard
(East)
None required with a
PUD
30 feet
30 feet Yes
Side Yard
(West)
Variance granted 6 feet 6 feet Yes
Floor Area
Ratio
None with a PUD 2.1 2.1 Yes
Ground Floor
Area Ratio
In RC, 0.30 with a PUD 0.30 0.29 Yes
D.O.R.A. 4,041 square feet (12%) 4,188 square feet or
12.4%
4,323 square feet
12.8%
Yes
Landscaping 58 trees 48 trees 54 trees Yes
559 shrubs 231 shrubs,
479 perennials
232 shrubs,
539 perennials
Alternative landscaping Rooftop patio (615
square feet) and a patio
adjacent to the
lobby/lounge area
Rooftop patio (750
square feet) and a
patio adjacent to the
lobby/lounge area.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
Architectural Design
Description
The proposed building is five stories (60 feet) tall. On the Excelsior Boulevard elevation, the
second through fifth floors are set back from the first floor elevation to improve the pedestrian-
scale of the building. The materials and design are consistent with Ellipse on Excelsior. Five
units on the along Excelsior Boulevard elevation are loft units spanning the fourth and fifth
floors.
The previous design had a patio on the 5th level and north side (back) of the building. The
revised design relocates this patio to the rooftop and south side (front) of the building which is
now proposed to be enclosed space and converted to leasable area. Attached for your review are
renderings of the “previous design” and the “revised design” for the north side (back) of the
building.
Shadows
Enclosing the northwest corner of the building increases the shadows that would be cast onto
neighboring Minikahda Court apartment buildings.
The City Code states, “All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions
thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50
percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.”
DJR Architects prepared an updated shadow study. A summary of the results is attached for
your review. For comparison, images from the shadow studies of the “previous design” and
“revised design” are also attached for your review. The building meets the shadow ordinance.
Materials
Building materials include stone, brick, stucco, glass, stucco panel veneer, textured and colored
concrete block, and metal panel. On the north and west elevations, portions of the lower levels of
the building were changed from concrete block (class II material) to stucco (class I material).
The percentage varies depending on the elevation, but each of the four elevations has at least
60% class I materials as required by City Code. The front elevation has the highest percentage
of class I materials (99%). Overall the building provides 71% Class 1 materials, and 29% Class
II materials. The development exceeds the City Code requirements.
Parking
The plan provides a combination of underground garage parking, at-grade parking covered by
the building, and uncovered surface parking. A summary of the parking supplied in the e2 and
Ellipse on Excelsior developments is attached for your information.
The parking requirement for multiple family developments is one parking stall per bedroom.
The revised plan has 65 bedrooms (three more than the previous design). The revised plan also
has one more parking stall in the underground garage than the plan approved by City Council in
January.
The total parking stalls provided in the revised design is 109 parking stalls, including the 22
parking stalls for the commercial tenants at Ellipse on Excelsior. This meets and exceeds the
number of parking stalls required by the zoning code.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The plan provides the required 12% DORA as detailed in the Zoning Analysis Table. The
DORA includes sidewalk connections, adjacent landscaped areas, rooftop patio, and a surface
patio off of the lobby/lounge area. The rooftop patio expanded from 615 square feet to 750
square feet and moved to the roof of the fifth floor. The total DORA increased to 12.8%.
Landscaping
Six trees, one shrub, and 60 perennials were added in the revised plan. Overall the landscaping
plan provides 54 of the 58 trees required on the site. It provides 232 of the 559 shrubs required.
Also, there are 539 perennial plantings. The plan provides relatively dense landscaping in the
available area. Plantings are concentrated along the perimeter of the site and around the
designed outdoor recreation areas. The plan includes the use of alternative landscape features,
including a rooftop patio and a patio off of the lobby/lounge. With the alternative landscape
features, the plan meets the requirements.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution Approving the PUD Major Amendment
• Excerpt of the Unofficial Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2012
• Color Illustrations
o Building Renderings
§ Street Rendering
§ North Side Rendering (Previous Design)
§ North Side Rendering (Revised Design)
o Parking Overview
o Shadow Study
§ Summary Table
§ Shadow Study (Previous Design)
§ Shadow Study (Revised Design)
• Architectural Plans
o A100 Garage Plan
o A110 First Floor Plan
o A120 Second Floor Plan
o A130 Third Floor Plan
o A140 Fourth Floor Plan
o A150 Fifth Floor Plan
o A160 Roof Plan
o A200 Building Elevations
o A201 Building Elevations
• Civil Engineering Plans
o C201 Site Plan
o C300 Grading Plan
o C400 Utility Plan
o L100 Landscape Plan
o L200 Landscape Plan
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 12-008
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO.
12-008 AND APPROVING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL
PLANNED UNIT AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD FOR ELLIPSE II
ON EXCELSIOR (“e2”)
WHEREAS, Bader Development proposes to construct a 58-unit apartment building at
3924 Excelsior Boulevard named Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the RC High Density Multiple Family
Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for approval of a Final Planned Unit Development
(PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code was received on October 18,
2011 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept plans at the meeting of
September 21, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the public hearing after proper notice and
publication at the meeting of November 16, 2011, and recommended approval of the Preliminary
PUD, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolutions No. 11-141, 11-142, and 11-143
approving a Preliminary Plat with Variance, Side Yard and Rear Yard Variances, and
Preliminary PUD respectively all relating to the subject property, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at the meeting of
January 4, 2012, and recommended approval of the Final PUD, and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 12-008 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated January 17, 2012, which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to the PUD conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, Bader Development made application to the City for a major amendment to
a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park
Ordinance to allow changes that increase the required parking and increase the off-site shadow
impacts of the building.
WHEREAS, a complete application for approval of a major amendment to a Final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
was received on March 30, 2012 from the applicant, and
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the application was published in the St. Louis
Park Sailor on March 22, 2012, and mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the
subject property, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the public hearing at the meeting of April 4,
2012, and recommended approval of the Major Amendment to the Final PUD, and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the information related to Planning Case Nos.
11-27-PUD and 12-12-PUD and the effect of the applications on the health, safety, and welfare
of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect
on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearings or otherwise including
comments in the record of decision.
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution Nos. 12-008, to add the amendments now required, and to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 11-27-PUD and 12-12-PUD are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Bader Development has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development to construct a 58-unit apartment building on property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard,
and legally described as follows:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the
plat of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with
and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said
plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension
170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said
parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence
Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point
of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND
The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 11-27-PUD and 12-12-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
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 50 units per acre to 75 units per acre.
b. Increased Ground Floor Area Ratio from 0.25 to 0.30.
c. Increased Floor Area Ratio from 1.2 to 2.1
d. Reduced front yard to allow a 10-foot building setback, and five-foot setback for
the exterior stairways and ADA accessible ramp.
e. Reduced side (east) yard setback to 30 feet.
4. The contents of Planning Case File Nos. 11-27-PUD and 12-12-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 for a 58-unit apartment building at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Final PUD
official exhibits. The Official Exhibits shall include a Parking Management Plan.
2. The following requirements, as indicated in the official exhibits, shall apply to the PUD:
a. A maximum residential density of 75 units per acre.
b. A maximum of 58 residential units.
c. A minimum of 108 109 parking spaces.
d. A maximum building height of 60 feet.
e. A maximum ground floor area ratio of 0.30 0.29.
f. A maximum floor area ratio of 2.1.
g. A minimum front yard of 10 feet for the building and 4 feet for exterior stairs and
ramps (from southerly property line along Excelsior Boulevard).
h. A minimum side yard (from the easterly property line) of 30 feet.
i. Any amendments to the e2 Parking Management Plan shall require the approval
of City of St. Louis Park.
3. 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 following issues have been identified as appropriate to
include in the PUD development agreement:
a. A list of all PUD modifications.
b. A list of public improvements to be installed at Developer’s expense.
c. An irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney protecting the
22 parking stalls to be used by the Ellipse on Excelsior commercial development
at 3900 Excelsior Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
d. A requirement for a performance guarantee in the form of cash or letter of credit
for 125% of the estimated cost of all public improvements, including fire
hydrants, on-street loading bay, street signs, and streetscape improvements along
Excelsior Boulevard, and for the required site landscaping.
e. A maintenance agreement for the Developer to maintain adjacent public
improvements, including the proposed on-street loading bay and streetscape along
Excelsior Boulevard.
f. An agreement for the Developer to continue to pay annual services charges for the
special services district in an amount equal to what would be the amount payable
by the property if it remained a commercial property.
g. A requirement that all trash handling and storage facilities shall be located inside
the building.
h. A requirement that utility service structures shall be buried; and 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.
4. The following conditions shall be met prior to starting any land disturbing activities on
the site:
a. Proof of Recording the Final Plat shall be submitted to the City.
b. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the City for review.
c. The assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and owner.
d. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
e. A staging plan for construction shall be filed with the City.
f. A plan to manage parking during construction shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval.
g. All necessary permits must be obtained.
5. 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, public improvements, and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and City
policies.
c. The Developer shall provide the required performance guarantee.
d. The proposed 22 shared commercial parking stalls shall be protected by an
irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy
of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60
days of the Final PUD approval.
6. The Developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. Construction shall comply with all City noise ordinances. Construction activity
will be limited to 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. and
10 p.m. Saturdays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or national
holidays.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto streets and
neighboring properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
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.
7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the following shall be completed:
a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the Official Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the Official
Exhibits.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
Official Exhibits.
d. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that all
such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. Painting of mechanical
equipment shall not be considered screening.
8. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within 48
hours.
9. Bader Development has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development to construct a 58-unit apartment building on property at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard, and legally described as follows:
10. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on April 16, 2012 to allow up to 65
bedrooms in the 58-unit apartment building, subject to the preceding conditions and the
following added conditions:
a. The developer and owner shall sign the assent form and amended Official
Exhibits.
b. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits; such documents incorporated by reference herein.
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.
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 April 16, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major Amendment
Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
April 4, 2012
B. Ellipse II (e2) Major Amendment to Planned Unit Development
Location: 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Bader Development
Case No: 12-12-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Proposed revisions to the plan
are to increase the bedroom count from 62 to 65 bedrooms, move the 4th floor roof patio
to the roof of the 5th floor, add floor area to the 5th floor, convert some interior common
space to leasable area, and a slight reduction in ground floor area.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the actual building height increased in order to gain
access to the roof top patio area.
Mr. Walther responded that there is a stairway and elevator that extend above the height
of the rest of the building which is allowed by the ordinance and doesn’t count against the
building height.
Sheldon Berg, D.J. Architecture, provided a brief overview of the proposed changes.
Mr. Walther noted that he received a phone call from Esta Miller, owner of the
commercial building at 3947 Excelsior Boulevard, expressing her support for the project
and the development in general.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to speak,
he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of a Major Amendment
to the Final PUD subject to conditions. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 19, 201211.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2STREET RENDERINGexcelsior boulevardCity Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 11
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 19, 201211.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2NORTHSIDE RENDERING (PREVIOUS DESIGN)view from Minikahda CourtCity Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 12
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 19, 201211.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2NORTHSIDE RENDERING (REVISED DESIGN)view from Minikahda CourtSTUCCO (CLASS 1) ADDEDRECESSED BALCONY ADDEDFIFTH FLOOR PATIO INFILLEDSTUCCOCity Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 13
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 19, 201211.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2GARAGESITEGARAGESITE(3 BEDROOMS ADDED +5 RESIDENTIAL SPACES ADDED)PARKING OVERVIEWELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR:E2 :RESIDENTIAL PARKING: TOTAL UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMSRESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREDGARAGE PARKING PROVIDEDRETAIL VALET PARKINGRESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKINGTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED58656578 SPACES (1/BR + 13)229109 SPACES: (65 REQUIRED + 44 ADDITIONAL)RESIDENTIAL PARKING: TOTAL UNITS TOTAL BEDROOMSRESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREDRESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDEDRETAIL / GUEST PARKINGTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED132177177 SPACES 178 SPACES (1/BR)101 SPACES279 SPACES101 RETAIL SPACES178 RESIDENTIAL SPACES75 RESIDENTIAL SPACES22 RETAIL SPACES3 RESIDENTIAL SPACES9 GUEST SPACESPROPOSED PROJECTPROPOSED PROJECTEXISTING PROJECTEXISTING PROJECTCity Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 14
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 19, 201211.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.2SHADOW STUDY SUMMARYFEBRUARY 21DECEMBER 21Minikahda Ct100%100%55%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct100%100%64%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct100%100%54%0%0%0%0%Minikahda Ct 100%58% 0% 0%0%0% 0% JANUARY 6 JANUARY 21NOVEMBER 219:00 am10:00 am11:00 am12:00 pm1:00 pm2:00 pm3:00 pmMinikahda Ct 100%100%17%0%0%0%0%City of St. Louis Park Zoning CodeSection 36-366 Architectural Design (b) 1. (9):“All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow which covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.”Conclusion:- e2 exceeds 50% for 34 days, between December 20 (49% at 11am) and January 23 (51% at 11am).- e2 complies with the City of St. Louis Park Zoning Code on shading criteria for the neighboring properties.City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 15
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaSeptember 20, 201111.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.245%0%SHADOW STUDY (PREVIOUS DESIGN)january 6 11:00amCity Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 16
eSt. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 19, 201211.0008.0BD BaderDevelopmentDJRARCHITECTURE INC.264%0%SHADOW STUDY (REVISED DESIGN)jan 6 11:00amCity Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 17
UPUPA201E4A201C4A200E4A200D11234567ABCDEFHRAMP UPPROPERTY LINEN STAIR031S STAIR0308MECHEXHAUSTWALL MOUNTED BIKERACK, TYPICAL OF 40TRASH /RECYCLING024ELEVATORLOBBY022GARAGE001WATER003ELECTRICAL002BIKE STORAGE00410 BIKES18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"1'-3 3/4"17'-2 5/8"5 5/8"6"16'-6"3/8"7 5/8"4"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"16'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-6"1'-8"8'-6"12345678MAKE UPAIR UNIT9101112131415161718192021222324252627293031323334353637394041286466687072586062525456464850474951535557596163656769717342444345AREA WELL8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"1'-4"8'-0"8'-0"CEILING MOUNTEDBIKE RACK, TYPICALOF 1324'-0"27'-8"27'-0"27'-0"27'-8"39'-8"0"0"9'-10"8'-6"8'-6"16'-3 5/8"18'-0"746" BOLLARDS, TYP.8'-10 7/8"8'-0"173'-0"19'-0"17'-0"25'-8"17'-4"17'-0"26'-0"18'-0"140'-0"FD87'-0"4" H. CONCPAD FORMECH.9'-11 233/256"87'-2"88'-0"FD87'-10"88'-0"87'-10"FD88'-0"88'-0"87'-10"FD88'-0"87'-10"FD87'-10"FD88'-0"88'-0"87'-10"FD88'-0"5% RAMP DOWN86'-6"FD86'-8"86'-0"86'-0"85'-10"FD86'-0"FDFD86' - 0 9/16"86'-4"86'-0"ELECTRICAL BOXES,TYP.; SEE ELEC.6'-2"12'-6"EQEQ03002202410000200338005MAINTENANCE00550'-7"16'-0"1'-1"14'-11"12'-1"031STANDPIPEUP88' - 4"85' - 10"85' - 10"88' - 4"FD85' - 10"1 1/2" SQUAREPIPE RAILING1 1/2" SQUAREPIPE RAILING75NEW PARKINGSPACENEW PARKINGSPACEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright2012DJRArchitecture,IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A100GARAGE PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1GARAGE1 Planning Submittal10.17.112 Planning Corrections11.09.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 18
DNUPUPDNDNDNDNA201E4A201C4A200E4A200D11234567ABCDEFHA201B1A201C1A201E1772 SF1BEDROOM +106UNIT B6707 SF1 BEDROOM104UNIT A2807 SF1 BEDROOM +103UNIT B11027 SF2 BEDROOM102UNIT C36883 SFPARKING150393 SFSTORAGE140413/16"2'-7"2'-0"9'-113/8"41'-25/8"10'-113/8"0"66'-2"66'-65/8"39'-103/8"A200B4TRASH124N STAIR131ELEC123606 SFFITNESS125501 SFFITNESS STUDIO1268140'-0"172'-7"1471 SFLOUNGE/LOBBY120CORRIDOR127ELEVATORLOBBY / MAIL122WOMEN128MEN129S STAIR130PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE4'-0"10'-11 3/4"8'-9 1/4"15'-1 1/2"10'-9 1/4"5'-4 3/8"52'-11 7/8"17'-0"234WALL ABOVEWALL ABOVEGARAGE DOORENTRY TORESIDENTIALPARKINGGARAGE DOOR ENTRYTO GROUND LEVELPARKINGDASHED LINEINDICATES PERIMETEROF GARAGE BELOWDASHED LINEINDICATES PERIMETEROF GARAGE BELOW567891011121314151617181920212222 RETAIL PARKINGSPACES;3 RESIDENTIALPARKING SPACES18'-0"18'-0"40'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"1'-43/8"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-0"1'-4"8'-0"8'-0"120'-11"WALL ABOVEWALL ABOVE1'-73/4"252324STANDPIPESTANDPIPE35'-6 3/16"61'-0"42'-6 3/16"137'-0 13/16"1'-11 9/16"19'-0"17'-0"25'-8"17'-4"17'-0"26'-0"18'-0"140'-0"3'-0"24'-0"27'-8"27'-0"27'-0"27'-8"39'-8"173'-0"15.9% RAMP DOWN5'-10"4'-8"9'-9"3'-4"2'-0"14'-0"6'-03/16"18'-0"3'-13/16"HYDRATIONSTATIONVANRESRESRES8"8'-4"8 3/8"8'-0"8'-0"67 SFVESTIBULE A13253 SFPACKAGE120B74 SFVESTIBULE B13310'-0"5% SLOPE UPFDFDFD99'-10"SLOPESLOPESLOPE6" HIGH CONC.CURB6" HIGH CONC.CURB40'-11"PREFABRICATEDMETAL MESH STORAGELOCKERS, TYP.FDFDMECH.MECH.72" SPARKMODERN FIRE FP.THIS AREA ON 4"CONC. OVERRIGID INSULATIONON P/C PLANK(60) 4CALUM.MAILBOXESSCUPPER, TYP.SLOPESTONE FACEDPLANTER WALL AT2'-0" A.F.F.PLANTER12345613789101112144'-7"PORTION OF PLANAREA REMOVED ATFIRST FLOORDEN ADDED TOEXISTING UNITARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A110FIRST FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 19
UPDNUPDNA201E4A201C4A200E4A200D11234567ABCDEFHA201B1A201C1A201E1817 SF1 BEDROOM +203UNIT B1699 SF1 BEDROOM202UNIT A2b1081 SF2 BEDROOM200UNIT C1715 SF1 BEDROOM204UNIT A2493 SFSTUDIO207UNIT S2714 SF1 BEDROOM213UNIT A1714 SF1 BEDROOM208UNIT A1843 SF1 BEDROOM +210UNIT B1b714 SF1 BEDROOM212UNIT A11102 SF1 BEDROOM +214UNIT B5714 SF1 BEDROOM201UNIT A1N STAIR231S STAIR230ELEC22211'-9 5/16"21'-8 3/8"10'-3 5/16"78'-4 11/16"7'-0"83'-105/8"10'-113/8"41'-25/8"12'-4"158'-0"122'-0 5/8"107'-0"18'-0"125'-0"A200B4561 SFCONVERTIBLE211UNIT V1STORAGE22544'-4"ELEV LOBBY221TRASH223CORRIDOR2208STEEL-FRAMEDCANOPY BELOWW/ METAL ROOF;FASCIA ANDSOFFIT W/ GUTTERALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPSTONE VENEERWALL BELOWPAVER PATIO, TYPROOFROOFA351B1A350A5STANDPIPE492 SFSTUDIO209UNIT S1449 SFSTUDIO205UNIT S326'-0"26'-6"230U1221U1200201214225213231212211209208207206205204223222203202710 SF1 BEDROOM206UNIT A1200B205B207B209B214B213B212B211B210B208B206B204B203B202B201BFDDSSLOPEDSDS21'-9 11/16"10'-0 5/16"6'-1013/16"14'-105/16"11'-101/2"1'-9 1/4"1'-81/4"2'-8 1/16"STANDPIPE210ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A120SECOND FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 20
DNUPUPDNA201E4A201C4A200E4A200D11234567ABCDEFHA201B1A201C1A201E1843 SF1 BEDROOM +310UNIT B1b714 SF1 BEDROOM308UNIT A1710 SF1 BEDROOM306UNIT A1715 SF1 BEDROOM304UNIT A2817 SF1 BEDROOM +303UNIT B1714 SF1 BEDROOM301UNIT A11081 SF2 BEDROOM300UNIT C1713 SF1 BEDROOM312UNIT A1561 SFCONVERTIBLE311UNIT V1449 SFSTUDIO305UNIT S3ELEVATORLOBBY3211101 SF1 BEDROOM +314UNIT B5N STAIR331S STAIR330699 SF1 BEDROOM302UNIT A2b714 SF1 BEDROOM313UNIT A1493 SFSTUDIO307UNIT S2A200B4497 SFSTUDIO309UNIT S1TRASH323108 SFELEC322STORAGE3258CORRIDOR320A351B3A350B1A414E6STANDPIPE26'-6"3143253133313123113093083073063053043233223213303033023013009'-7 23/32"303B302B301B300B305B307B309B314B313B312B311B310B308B306B304B5'-0"STANDPIPED6A414B6C6310ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A130THIRD FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1THIRD FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 21
UPDNUPDNA201E4A201C4A200E4A200D11234567ABCDEFHA201B1A201C1A201E1A200B48816 SF2 BEDROOM403UNIT C2702 SF1 BEDROOM +402UNIT B3712 SF1 BEDROOM +401UNIT B41084 SF2 BEDROOM +400UNIT D11101 SF1 BEDROOM +414UNIT B5493 SFSTUDIO407UNIT S2497 SFSTUDIO409UNIT S1449 SFSTUDIO405UNIT S3843 SF1 BEDROOM +410UNIT B1b561 SFCONVERTIBLE411UNIT V1714 SF1 BEDROOM412UNIT A1714 SF1 BEDROOM408UNIT A1714 SF1 BEDROOM413UNIT A1CORRIDOR420N STAIR431ELEVATORLOBBY421STORAGE425ELEC422TRASH423S STAIR430STANDPIPE400401430421402403422404423405406407408409411412431413425414715 SF1 BEDROOM404UNIT A2710 SF1 BEDROOM406UNIT A1403B402B401B400B405B407B409B414B413B412B411B410B408B406B404BSTANDPIPE410ARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A140FOURTH FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FOURTH FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 22
DNDNA201E4A201C4A200D11234567ABCDEFHA201B1A201C1A201E11101 SF1 BEDROOM +514UNIT B5962 SF1 BEDROOM507UNIT B2A200B4714 SF1 BEDROOM512UNIT A1710 SF1 BEDROOM506UNIT A1715 SF1 BEDROOM504UNIT A2497 SFSTUDIO509UNIT S1714 SF1 BEDROOM513UNIT A1CORRIDOR520675 SFLOFT400UNIT D1592 SFLOFT403UNIT C2459 SFLOFT402UNIT B3394 SFLOFT401UNIT B4STORAGE525N STAIR5311054 SF2 BEDROOM508UNIT C4ELEV LOBBY521S STAIR53057 SFELEC522TRASH5238A351B5A350B3STAND PIPE514525513531512509508506505504523522521530505B507B509B514B513B512B508B506B504BCONTINUESUBFLOORTHROUGH VOIDSTANDPIPEELEV EQUIP5331100 SF2 BEDROOM515UNIT C5NEW 2 BR UNITADDED BR TOEXISTING UNITCOMBINED 2 UNITSINTO 1 LARGER UNITARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A150FIFTH FLOOR PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIFTH FLOOR1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 23
A201E4A201C4A200E4A200D1A201B1A201C1A201E1A200B4ODRDELEVATOROVER-RUNODRDRDOD42'-5 167/256"34'-10187/256"RDODMECH. ROOFTOPUNIT; SEE MECH.CONDENSING UNIT,TYP.; SEE MECH.MECH. ROOFTOPUNIT; SEE MECH.ROOF ADDED OVERNEW 2 BR UNITARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A160ROOF PLANApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"1A160-ROOF PLAN1 Planning Submittal10.17.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 24
1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"A3A301FIBERGLASSWINDOWSSTONE VENEER3 COAT STUCCOSYTEMALUMINUM STOREFRONTMETAL CANOPYBRICK VENEERALUMINUM SUNSHADEFIBERGLASSWINDOWSPREFIN. ALUM.FASCIA &SOFFITMETAL REVEAL,TYP.ALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPCAST STONE CAPPREFIN. ALUM.PARAPET CAPPREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILINGE1A350TRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"A2A310A3A310A4A310A3A312T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"A1A310T.O. PARAPET155' - 10"MECH. ROOFTOPUNIT; SEE MECH.C4A3131ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"GARAGE88' - 8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"BRICK VENEERFIBER GLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMAWNINGSTUCCO PANELVENEERALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPFIBERGLASSWINDOWSFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUMSTOREFRONTMETAL REVEALS,TYPALUMINUMRAILING @ PARAPET CAPPREFIN. ALUM.FASCIA & SOFFITTRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"METAL PANELMETAL PARAPET CAPT.O. PARAPET155' - 10"PREFINISHEDALUM. LOUVERSTEXTURED & COLORED CMUBLOCK WALL - ANCHORTRATTINO OR EQUALDOUBLE SOLDIERHEADERBRICK SOLDIER COURSE1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"A3A300STONE VENEER3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSALUMINUMSTOREFRONTALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPMETAL CANOPYTRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"A4A312AREA WELLPROJECTED 2'-0"ABOVE GRADEW/ CAST STONE CAPALUMINUM AWNINGT.O. PARAPET155' - 10"PREFINISHEDALUM. PANELB4A310CLASS 1 71% BRICK VENEER STONE VENEER 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSBUILDING MATERIAL RECAPCLASS 229% METAL PANEL STUCCO PANEL VENEERELEVATIONCLASS 1CLASS 2COMMENTSSOUTH99%1%WEST61%39%NORTH63%/60%37%/40%2ND NUMBER INCLUDES WALL AREA COVERED BY GARAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYEAST67%33%COMBINED ELEVATIONS 1/A200, 2/A201, & 4/A201SOUTH COURTYARD40%60%NORTH COURTYARD100%0%BUILDING MATERIAL BY ELEVATIONSBAHGFCDEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A200EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"E4SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - A 1/8" = 1'-0"D1WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - H 1/8" = 1'-0"B4EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION @ SOUTH END OF BLDG - B1 Planning Submittal10.17.112 Planning Corrections11.09.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 25
1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"GARAGE88' - 8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"A3A3013 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMALUMINUM RAILING,TYP. - RAIL DESIGN TOMIMIC ELLIPSE IPREFIN. ALUM.PARAPET CAPSTUCCO PANELVENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEM3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSMETAL REVEALS,TYPMETAL PANELA1A312TRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"FASCIA & SOFFITT.O. PARAPET155' - 10"C4A312D1A311METAL PANELFIBERGLASS DOOR& SIDELIGHTTEXTURED & COLOREDCMU WALL; ANCHOR BLOCKTRATTINO OR EQUAL1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"A1A300A1A3013 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMFIBERGLASSWINDOWSALUM. RAILING,TYP.TRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"E1A311T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"METAL PANELD4A311T.O. PARAPET155' - 10"METAL CANOPY W/METAL ROOFING &SOFFITPREFINISHEDALUM. LOUVER3G1101ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"A3A301FIBERGLASSWINDOWSSTUCCO PANELVENEERFIBERGLASSWINDOWSCAST STONE CAPPREFIN. ALUM.PARAPET CAPA1A312TRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"METAL PANELT.O. PARAPET155' - 10"HOLLOW METALDOOR & TRANSOMSTONE VENEER1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"METAL PANELVENEERSTUCCO PANELVENEERSTONE VENEERFIBERGLASSPATIO DOORFIBERGLASSWINDOWALUMINUMBALCONIES, TYPTRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"A2A312T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"STONE VENEERMETAL PANELBAND3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEMT.O. PARAPET155' - 10"PREFIN. ALUM.PARAPET CAPCAST STONECAPSTONE VENEER ONCMU; PLANTER BOXW/ CAST SONE CAP1ST FLOOR100' - 0"2ND FLOOR112' - 0"3RD FLOOR122' - 7 7/8"4TH FLOOR133' - 3 3/4"5TH FLOOR143' - 11 5/8"A3A301ALUMINUMSTOREFRONTSTONE VENEERMETAL CANOPYFIBERGLASSWINDOWSFIBERGLASSWINDOWS3 COAT STUCCOSYSTEMPREFIN. ALUM.PARAPET CAPTRUSS BEARING153' - 0 3/4"A3A312T.O. HIGH PARAPET158' - 11 1/2"ALUM. AWNINGT.O. PARAPET155' - 10"METAL PANELCLASS 1 71% BRICK VENEER STONE VENEER 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSBUILDING MATERIAL RECAPCLASS 229% METAL PANEL STUCCO PANEL VENEERELEVATIONCLASS 1CLASS 2COMMENTSSOUTH99%1%WEST61%39%NORTH63%/60%37%/40%2ND NUMBER INCLUDES WALL AREA COVERED BY GARAGE ON ADJACENT PROPERTYEAST67%33%COMBINED ELEVATIONS 1/A200, 2/A201, & 4/A201SOUTH COURTYARD40%60%NORTH COURTYARD100%0%BUILDING MATERIAL BY ELEVATIONSBAHGFCDEARCHITECTURE,INCCopyright 2012 DJR Architecture, IncA6333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification,or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.PRINT NAMESIGNATUREREGISTRATION NUMBER DATECLIENT:BADER DEVELOPMENT5402 Parkdale Drive, #200Minneapolis, MN 55416Issue:Date:Project#:Date:Drawnby:Checkedby:CONTRACTORFRANA COMPANIES633 Second Avenue SouthHopkins, MN 55343STRUCTURALHANUSCHAK CONSULTANTS, INC26 Edmonton StreetWinnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1P7CanadaCIVILEVS, INC.10250 Valley View Rd, Suite 123Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534BCDE54321MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALSTEEN ENGINEERING5430 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55429NOTFORCONSTRUCTIONProgressDate:March20,20123924ExcelsiorBoulevard,St.LouisPark,MN55416A201EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSApprover09.19.2011111-000809.19.2011AuthorCheckere2 1/8" = 1'-0"C4NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - G 1/8" = 1'-0"E4EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - F 1/8" = 1'-0"B1SOUTH COURTYARD ELEVATION -E 1/8" = 1'-0"C1EAST COURTYARD ELEVATION - D 1/8" = 1'-0"E1NORTH COURTYARD ELEVATION - C1 Planning Submittal10.17.112 Planning Corrections11.09.113 Planning Resubmittal12.1.114 Staff Review Comments12.21.115 40% CD Pricing Set01.23.126 Revised Major PUD Amendment03.20.12City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 26
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 27
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 28
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 29
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 30
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) PUD Major AmendmentPage 31
Meeting Date: April 16, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE: Business Park Zoning District
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt the first reading of Ordinance approving the Business Park Zoning District,
and to set the second reading for May 7, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to create a Business Park Zoning District?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update in late 2009. As part of the
update, a new land use category of Business Park was created, and a number of parcels were
guided for future Business Park uses. The purpose for this category is stated as:
• Encouraging the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse
mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.
• Application of the category for larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide:
§ A greater diversity of jobs
§ Higher development densities and jobs per acre
§ Higher quality site and building architectural design
§ Increased tax revenues for the community
• Appropriate uses may include office, office showroom- warehousing, research and
development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and
medical laboratories.
• Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office
and light industrial uses of the employment center.
The proposed action would add a new Zoning Ordinance land use district that would be
consistent with the Business Park category in the Comprehensive Plan. The new zoning district
would be applied to the parcels designated for future Business Park uses in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Business Park Zoning:
The City Council reviewed the draft ordinance language for the new Business Park Zoning
District at the March 26th Study Session. The proposed district is intended to be applied to the
properties guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Business Park uses in the future. Once the
Zoning Ordinance is amended to include the Business Park district, a process will be undertaken
to consider rezoning parcels guided for Business Park uses.
Future City Council action will be needed to make the Zoning Map changes. After the Zoning
District is adopted, a list of properties that would potentially become non-conforming will be
compiled and used in consideration for appropriateness for the new zoning classification.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
Ordinance Details:
Development of the Business Park Zoning District began following adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The draft language was reviewed in late 2010 and early 2011 by the
Planning Commission. Issues were raised about the different uses that were to be allowed and
the performance standards for new buildings within the district.
The district is something of a hybrid between the Industrial Park and Office districts, as it would
allow for some light assembly and manufacturing, but has a greater emphasis on office and
medical office types of uses.
The ordinance includes three new land use categories to be encouraged within the Business Park
Zoning District, including:
• Research and Development - a facility for basic and applied research or product
development. It may include the testing of agricultural, biological, chemical, magnetic,
mechanical, optical or other components in advance of product manufacturing. The work
completed may result in the creation of new goods or new intellectual property. This use
does not involve the fabrication, mass manufacture, or processing of products.
• Light Assembly - an operation that provides for a limited range of low intensity assembly
activities, such as creating, repairing, or renovating products inside a fully enclosed
building with minimal external effects. Light Assembly does not result in noxious or
offensive odors, sounds, vibrations, emissions, or any external nuisances upon adjacent
properties. Such uses may be associated with small offices or warehousing operations.
• Low Impact Manufacturing and Processing - a facility that engages in the production of a
physical commodity or changing the form of a raw ingredient within a fully enclosed
structure. Such uses do not result in noxious or offensive odors, sounds, vibrations,
emissions, smoke or external nuisances upon adjacent properties. It may include
administrative offices, warehousing, and distribution. This use does not include outdoor
storage or overnight outdoor storage of commercial vehicles.
The new Business Park Zoning District has been drafted with the intent that it could be applied
throughout the City. The performance standards and new land use categories of the district are
intended to help steer future redevelopment toward uses that meet the broad goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the important goal to increase the overall density of jobs within
Business Park areas. This may lead to changes that reduce the level of truck traffic and heavy
manufacturing, and increase the amount of office and light assembly taking place in the area.
The ordinance allows for greater building height than allowed in the Industrial Park district, but
lesser heights than in the Office district. It maintains sensitivities to adjacency to single family
residential areas of the City, something that is reflective of the entire Zoning Ordinance. The
draft ordinance is attached for review.
During the City Council Study Session, there were questions regarding issues including how the
proposed ordinance addresses the issues of odors, fumes, and other nuisances, and how signage
will be regulated in the new district. The Zoning Ordinance was reviewed in regard to these
issues, which are regulated in detail in other sections of the ordinance, including sections devoted
specifically to performance standards and signs.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
Summary Table – Business Park compared to Office and Industrial Park
Performance Standard / Use Business Park Office Industrial Park
Outdoor storage Prohibited Prohibited Accessory Use
Hours of operation Limited when
adjacent to
residential
No restrictions Permit needed for
overnight use when
adjacent to residential
Offices Permitted Permitted Conditional Use Permit
Banks / Medical Offices Permitted Permitted Not permitted
Restaurants / Retail / Service Permitted if < 25%
of building
Permitted Permitted only in a
Planned Unit Development
Light manufacturing Conditional Use
Permit
Not permitted Permitted
Heavy manufacturing Not permitted Not permitted Permitted
Warehouse / Storage Permitted if < 50%
of the building
Not permitted Permitted
Large item retail
(i.e., furniture)
Permitted if < 15%
of the building
Not permitted Permitted if < 15% of the
building
Planned Unit Developments Only jobs oriented Unrestricted Only retail / service
Setbacks when adjacent to
residential
30 feet or building
height
Half of
building height
35 feet or use of a formula
Maximum building height 110 feet 240 feet 75 feet
Maximum floor area ratio 2.0 1.5 0.5
It is important to note that most of the parcels guided for Business Park are in close proximity to
future LRT stations. In such locations, it is possible that additional zoning changes may be
necessary prior to the commencement of LRT service. The Beltline Design Guidelines process,
for example, may result in some specific recommendations for zoning changes to help implement
the particular character of redevelopment called for in the guidelines. Further information about
station area planning and future zoning needs will emerge as planning studies for the stations are
completed.
Public Engagement:
The selection process for parcels to be designated as Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan
included several meetings with affected property and business owners. A total of 55 parcels
were guided for future Business Park uses, as depicted on the attached maps.
Staff has held several meetings with individual property owners in the area to discuss and obtain
input about the proposed Business Park Zoning District regulations. In addition, a large group
meeting to discuss the draft ordinance was held on June 22nd, 2011. All property owners and
businesses guided for Business Park in the Comprehensive Plan were invited to the meeting, and
a total of eight people attended and provided input into the draft ordinance. Business and
property owners were also notified directly of the Planning Commission public hearing for
consideration of the ordinance. There were no business or property owners present at the
Planning Commission public hearing. Property owners will be able to request rezoning after the
ordinance is in place.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Business Park Zoning District.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
Summary:
The proposed action to adopt the Business Park Zoning District conforms to previous action by
the City Council, including the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Following adoption
of the ordinance, a process will begin to consider rezoning parcels in accordance with the
adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance – Adopting Business Park Zoning District
2030 Comprehensive Plan – Business Park (Land Use Chapter)
2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Excerpts
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
BY ADOPTING SECTIONS 36-231 THROUGH 36-233
RELATING TO THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-02-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-231 through 36-233, and
Section 36-142 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language, adding underscored language,
and renumbering subsequent Divisions and provisions. Section breaks are represented by ***.
***
ARTICLE IV. ZONING DISTRICTS § 36-231
DIVISION 7. BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sec. 36-231. Purpose of division.
The provisions of this division deal with business park uses of land and structures in the city.
Sec. 36-232. Business Park (BP) district restrictions and performance standards.
No structure or premises within any BP district shall be used for any use allowed as permitted,
permitted with conditions, Conditional Use Permit, or Planned Unit Development, unless it
complies with the following regulations:
1. All activities conducted in a BP district shall be conducted wholly within an
enclosed structure except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this chapter.
2. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited in the BP district.
3. All delivery service entrances to a building in the BP district shall be from a
public alley, service alley, or off-street parking lot.
4. No vehicular curb-cuts shall be permitted within a distance of 50 feet from any
intersection, unless the City Engineer determines that such a curb-cut is necessary
and will be safe for pedestrians or bicyclists using nearby trails, sidewalks, or
roadways.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
5. Structures shall not generate significant traffic on local residential streets. Where
possible, structures shall be accessed from a roadway identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial.
6. Off-street parking shall not be located between any buildings and an adjacent
residential property line.
7. The Zoning Administrator shall review plans for all loading docks, which to the
greatest extent possible should be screened from the right-of-way and should not
be located between the principal building and any adjacent residential property
line.
8. Truck activity routes shall be reviewed to account for the expected level of
pedestrian traffic. Such routes should be designed to minimize impacts to
pedestrian and bicycle routes and safety issues during periods of truck activity.
9. The processes and equipment used to conduct the business of a primary use on
any site in the BP district shall meet the following requirements:
a. Vibration. Any vibration discernible beyond the property line to the
human sense of feeling for three minutes or more duration (cumulative) in
any one hour and any vibration producing a particle velocity of more than
0.035 inch per second are prohibited.
b. Glare or heat. Any operation producing intense glare or heat shall be
performed within an enclosure so as not to be perceptible at the property
line.
c. Noise. Noise levels both inside and outside of buildings must meet federal,
state and local requirements which may be amended from time to time.
d. Air pollution. All emissions shall meet federal, state and local
requirements which may be amended from time to time.
10. Uses located upon parcels located adjacent to a parcel zoned, guided or used for
residential purposes may operate only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00
PM. The Zoning Administrator may, in writing, waive this performance standard
if it can be demonstrated that overnight operations will have no negative effects
on adjacent properties.
Sec. 36-233. BP business park district.
(a) Purpose / effect. The purposes of the BP business park district are to:
1. Encourage the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a
diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs.
2. Allow for redevelopment and intensification of sites to provide a greater diversity
of employment opportunities within the community, increase development
densities and jobs per acre, and improve overall site aesthetics and building
design.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
3. Shape redevelopment to meet the requirements of the market to provide efficient
building types with sufficient access, high clear heights, truck courts, and
aesthetically pleasing building exteriors and sites.
4. Encourage and support the appropriate evolution and expansion of individual
businesses to improve the climate for business growth and foster conditions
favorable to increasing the amount of finished square footage and the number of
jobs per acre in BP areas.
5. Protect planned Business Park areas from encroachment from non-affiliated or
incompatible uses, while enhancing their compatibility with nearby residential
areas.
6. Promote and support the redevelopment or rehabilitation of physically and
economically obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites.
7. Promote business park developments that utilize efficient land use and building
designs, including multi-story buildings, multi-tenant buildings, and structured
parking.
8. Encourage and support new business park developments that are designed as
employment centers that are integrated in to the community with strong
connections to adjacent public streets and spaces, natural features, transit, and
other community amenities.
9. Encourage shared parking between uses, including flexible parking arrangements
to allow for multi-modal use of available transit and regional trail facilities.
10. Regulate the trade and commerce of the community.
11. Provide opportunities for multi-modal activity on streets and an improved,
desirable environment for pedestrians and other non-motorized modes of
transportation.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses with a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 are
permitted in the BP district:
1. Banks.
2. Business / trade school.
3. College / University.
4. Libraries.
5. Medical and dental office or laboratory.
6. Museums/art galleries.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
7. Offices.
8. Parks and open spaces.
9. Parks and recreation.
10. Police and fire stations.
11. Research and Development.
12. Transit stations.
(c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any BP district may be used for
one or more of the following uses if it has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 and
complies with the performance standards as stated in Section 36-232 and the conditions
stated below:
1. Catering. The conditions are as follows:
a. Any exhaust system venting to the outdoors shall be located away from
residential areas.
b. Outside storage of catering vehicles or associated equipment is prohibited.
2. Adult day care. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use must have a minimum of 150 square feet of outdoor area per adult
under care dedicated to outdoor activity or be within ¼ mile of a city park.
3. Communication antennas. The conditions are as follows:
a. Antennas must be attached to an existing structure.
b. Antennas shall be subject to all provisions of Section 36-368,
“Communication Towers and Antennas”.
4. Educational. Educational uses for students grades K-12, subject to conditions as
follows:
a. The use must have a minimum of 40 square feet of outdoor area per
student dedicated to outdoor student activity or be within ¼ mile of a city
park.
b. The use may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a single story
building or 50% of the ground floor in a multi-story building.
5. Group day care/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use must have a minimum of 40 square feet of outdoor area per pupil
dedicated to outdoor activity or be within ¼ mile of a city park.
b. The use may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a single story
building or 50% of the ground floor in a multi-story building.
c. Provision shall be made for drop-off and pick-up of children or students.
6. Indoor entertainment, The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of a multi-use
building.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
b. The use must be so located as to be visible and easily accessible to
pedestrians from the public right-of-way.
7. Public Service Structures. The conditions are as follows:
a. All structures shall be located a minimum of ten feet from any parcel that
is zoned residential.
b. All service drives shall be paved.
8. Restaurants, Retail or Service. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed of 25% of the gross floor area of a multi-use
building or 50% of the ground floor area in a multi-story building,
whichever is greater.
b. The use must be so located as to be visible and easily accessible to
pedestrians from the public right-of-way.
9. Studios. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a multi-use
building.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in a BP district shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with
all standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 36, and shall only be permitted if findings are
produced indicating that there are no adverse impacts upon the health, safety and welfare of
the community.
1. Uses allowed as “Permitted” or “Permitted with Conditions” in the BP district
with a floor area ratio (FAR) equal to or greater than 1.0.
2. Light Assembly or Low Impact Manufacturing and Processing.
3. More than one principal building.
a. Uses where more than one principal building is located on a single lot.
4. Parking ramps.
a. Parking ramps constructed as the principal use on a site shall meet the
dimensional standards of this Section.
b. Parking ramps shall meet or exceed the architectural design standards for
principal buildings found in Section 36-366.
c. A minimum of 40% of the street level frontage of a parking ramp located
adjacent to a street designated as a “Collector” or higher in the
Comprehensive Plan shall be dedicated to non-parking uses. This
requirement may be adjusted at the direction of the Planning Commission
based on specific reasons related to site design.
d. Parking ramps shall be designed so that vehicles are not visible from the
sidewalk and the only openings at street level are those to accommodate
vehicle ingress and egress.
e. Snow removal areas shall not be located in the front yard or side yard
abutting a street.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
(e) Uses permitted by PUD. A structure or land in a BP district may be dedicated to non-
residential uses meeting the purpose and effect of the Zoning District through the PUD
process, if such uses are primarily dedicated to increasing employment density and furthering
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Such uses shall comply with the requirements of the
performance standards in Section 36-232. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to
dimensional standards and densities are provided under section 36-367.
(f) Accessory uses. Within any BP district, the following shall be permitted accessory uses,
subject to any required conditions:
1. Food service. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use must be located on the ground floor.
b. The use may not exceed 25% of the building’s total floor area.
2. Incidental repair or processing ancillary to the principal use that does not exceed
5 percent of the gross floor area, subject to the following conditions:
a. The use shall be located to the rear of the principal structure.
b. The use shall meet all conditions of Sections 36-232 (a) and (b).
3. Large Item Retail Sales. The conditions are as follows:
a. The use may not exceed 15% of the building’s total floor area.
4. Parking ramps, subject to the conditions for parking ramps found in Section 36-
233 (d)(6).
5. Parking lots.
6. Post Office Customer Service.
7. Showroom.
8. Warehouse / Storage.
(g) Dimensional standards. The dimensional standards are as follows:
1. The height of structures or buildings on sites within the BP zoning district shall be
limited as follows:
a. Sites located immediately adjacent to property zoned R-1 or R-2 shall be
limited to the lesser of four (4) stories or 55 feet in height.
b. Sites separated by a public right-of-way or not immediately adjacent to
property zoned R-1 or R-2 shall be limited to the lesser of eight (8) stories
or 110 feet in height.
2. The floor area ratio for structures or buildings within the BP district shall not
exceed 2.0, nor shall the floor area ratio be less than 0.4.
3. Required yard depth (building setbacks) shall follow the requirements of Table
36-233 (a) except when superseded by the following:
a. No building shall be located closer than 30 feet or the building height,
whichever is greater, to a single family residential property line.
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
b. The maximum front yard or side yard abutting a street (build-to line) may
be increased to 25 feet from the property line if a courtyard, plaza, or
seating area is incorporated into the development adjacent to the public
street.
c. The maximum yard (build-to line) requirement shall apply to at least 50%
of a structure’s elevation along the front yard or side yard abutting a street.
4. Each lot shall contain designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) at the ratio of
0.12 times the gross lot area, with the following exceptions and conditions:
a. DORA shall not be required for any building or portion of a building
dedicated to warehouse, showroom, parking ramp, or parking lot uses.
b. DORA may be reduced by up to 25% if it is connected to and located
within a quarter-mile of the regional trail system.
c. DORA shall be developed into functional and aesthetic yard areas, plazas,
courtyards, and/or pedestrian facilities compatible with or enlarging upon
existing pedestrian links and open space.
d. On parcels where the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is less than 1.0, DORA shall
be provided at a ratio of 8% of the total lot area.
e. On parcels where the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.0 or greater, DORA
shall be provided at a ratio of 12% of the total lot area.
f.d. DORA shall be sited to enhance ecological habitat and increase
opportunities for shared public use with the City’s system of parks and
open space whenever possible.
Secs. 36-234-36-240. Reserved.
***
Section 36-142
(e) Industrial Uses. The following are typical of the industrial uses referred to in this chapter.
(4) Light Assembly means an operation that provides for a limited range of low intensity
assembly activities, such as creating, repairing, or renovating products inside a fully
enclosed building with minimal external effects. Light Assembly does not result in
noxious or offensive odors, sounds, vibrations, emissions, or any external nuisances upon
adjacent properties. Such uses may be associated with small offices or warehousing
operations.
Table 36-233 (a)
Front Rear Side Side yard abutting
a street
Minimum
yard 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Maximum
yard 10 feet None None 10 feet
City Council Meeting of April 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Business Park Zoning District
(5) Low Impact Manufacturing & Processing means a facility that engages in the production
of a physical commodity or changing the form of a raw ingredient within a fully enclosed
structure. Such uses do not result in noxious or offensive odors, sounds, vibrations,
emissions, smoke or external nuisances upon adjacent properties. It may include
administrative offices, warehousing, and distribution. This use does not include outdoor
storage or overnight outdoor storage of commercial vehicles.
***
(11) Research and Development means a facility for basic and applied research or product
development. It may include the testing of agricultural, biological, chemical, magnetic,
mechanical, optical or other components in advance of product manufacturing. The work
completed may result in the creation of new goods or new intellectual property. This use
does not involve the fabrication, mass manufacture, or processing of products.
***
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-02-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing February 1, 2012
First Reading April 16, 2012
Second Reading May 7, 2012
Date of Publication May 17, 2012
Date Ordinance takes effect June 1, 2012
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Environmental Stewardship
34 ComprehensivePlan
IV. Why We Are A Livable Community
B. Land Use Plan
IV-B16 ComprehensivePlan
VIII. CIV- Civic
The Civic land use category is intended for public buildings and
uses as well as similar private uses, such as schools, government
buildings, places of assembly, community centers, libraries and
non-profit institutions.
IX. BP - Business Park
The Business Park land use category is intended to encourage
the creation of significant employment centers that
accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses
and jobs. The Business Park designation should be applied
to larger sites that can be redeveloped to provide a greater
diversity of jobs, higher development densities and jobs per
acre, higher quality site and building architectural design,
and increased tax revenues for the community. Office, office-
showroom-warehousing, research and development services,
light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly,
and medical laboratories are typical uses appropriate for this
land use category. Some retail and service uses may be allowed
as supporting uses for the primary office and light industrial
uses of the employment center.
X. P - Parks and Open Space
The Parks & Open Space land use category includes all public
parks and open space land, as well as public recreational
facilities, such as the Recreational Center. It also encompasses
lakes and waterways, such as Bass Lake and Minnehaha Creek.
This category is intended for areas which are reserved for active
and passive recreational uses, natural amenities, protected
natural areas, and the City’s major stormwater retention and
drainage areas.
XI. ROW – Public Right-of-Way
The Public Right-of-Way land use category includes right-of-
way for both streets, sidewalks, trails and drainageways.
XII. RRR - Railroad
The Railroad land use category includes right-of-way used for
railway and trail purposes. Some of the land is owned by rail
companies; some of the land is owned by the Hennepin County
Regional Rail Authority and a portion
of it is used as a multi-purpose regional trail operated by
Three Rivers Park District.
City Council Meeting ofApril 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 13
Zoning Districts
Parcels guided for Business Park use
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2030 Comprehensive Plan MapBeltline Blvd. Area
City Council Meeting ofApril 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 14
Zoning Districts
Parcels guided for Business Park use
RL - Low Density Residential
RM - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
MX - Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
IND - Industrial
OFC - Office
BP - Business Park
CIV - Civic
PRK - Park and Open Space
ROW - Right of Way
RRR - Railroad
2030 Comprehensive Plan MapLouisiana Ave. Area
City Council Meeting ofApril 16, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District Page 15