HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/05/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
MAY 7, 2012
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
2. 6:45 p.m. Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
Written Reports
3. 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 April 16, 2012
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business -- None
7. New Business
7a. Internal Loan for Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing
Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing an internal loan for
advance of funds in connection with housing improvements within the established
Greensboro Condominium Owners Association HIA (“Greensboro HIA”), which was
established on December 5, 2011.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
Meeting of May 7, 2012
City Council Agenda
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Board and Commission Members
2b. 2012 National Public Works Week Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes April 9, 2012
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes April 16, 2012
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes April 16, 2012
3d. Study Session Meeting Minutes April 23, 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 -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Recommended Action:
Staff has provided the following two options for council consideration:
Option 1 - Motion to adopt Resolution approving issuance of a premises permit for
lawful gambling to be conducted by Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc. at
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill, 1623 Park Place Blvd.
Option 2 - Motion to adopt Resolution denying issuance of a premises permit for
lawful gambling to be conducted by Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc. at
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill, 1623 Park Place Blvd.
8b. Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit and Resolution approving Preliminary/Final Plat to allow construction of a
synagogue at 2950 Joppa Avenue South.
8c. Project Report: Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave.) Project #2011-1100
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report,
establishing Improvement Project No. 2011-1100 approving plans and specifications,
and authorizing advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 2011-1100.
Meeting of May 7, 2012
City Council Agenda
8d. Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the following three actions which will
allow for the implementation of the housing improvement area project:
• Motion to Adopt Second Reading of an Ordinance to establish the Westwood Villa
Association Housing Improvement Area, approve summary, and authorize publication.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution to impose fees.
• Motion to authorize execution of Contract for Private Development and any other
related documents, by the Mayor and City Manager, between the City and
Westwood Villa Association Inc., in a form consistent with the terms of the
ordinance and resolution.
8e. SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit to export/import approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill, subject to conditions
recommended by staff.
8f. Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and
Final Plat of Eldridge 4th Addition, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of May 7, 2012
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt the second reading of an Ordinance approving the Business Park Zoning District, approve
the summary ordinance, and to set the date of publication for May 17, 2012
4b. Designate Midwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of contract with the firm in the amount of $1,587,468.05 for the 2012 Local
Street Rehabilitation Project (Area 8) - Project Nos. 2011-1000 & 2012-1400
4c. Accept Donation from Residential Mortgage Group in the amount of $300. The Fire
Department would like to use the donation for restoration of the 1928 American
LaFrance fire truck
4d. Approve an Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard for Temporary
Private Use of Public Land for outdoor dining
4e. Grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change orders
and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and
2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing
policy
4f. Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 10-026 adopted March 15, 2010
approving rules and procedures for Boards and Commissions
4g. Accept a donation from Chandler Dykes in the amount of $46.53 for Westwood Hills
Nature Center
4h. Designate Xterior Xperts the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
contract with the firm in the amount of $180,409.00 for the replacement of Standing
Seam Roofs on various Park Buildings, Project No. LMC11076951
4i. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 20, 2012
4j. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2012
4k. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion will be to update the Council on recent project development
activities and to present a final proposed geometric layout prior to the planned Mn/DOT Open
House scheduled for May 15th - Project No. 2005-2000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council have any questions, comments or concerns regarding:
• The geometric layout including bicycling and pedestrian accommodations on the Hwy
100 bridge
• The noise study or Noise Advisory Committee (NAC) activities
• Next steps or the proposed project process
BACKGROUND:
History - At the September 8, 2008 Study Session Council was provided information and an
update regarding staff’s evaluation and investigation into improving north-south transportation
options as identified in the Vision St. Louis Park process. A copy of the SEH Technical
Memorandum, St. Louis Park TH 100 Underpass Study – Forecasting Methodology – Draft
dated August 11, 2008 was also provided to the Council then.
At the January 24, 2011 Study Session, City and Mn/DOT staff explained concepts B and C and
answered questions regarding the project. Council expressed an interest in an earlier version of
concept C that included a two way frontage road on the east side of Highway 100 south of
Minnetonka Boulevard, and retention of the W. 27th Street entrance ramp to southbound
Highway 100. Additional issues were identified such as determining the impact on Toledo
Avenue homes, minimizing cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods, retaining full access
between Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100, the potential need for noise walls, and
maintaining the existing trail along the east side of the highway. Other issues discussed included
mitigating congestion on Highway 100 to reduce local traffic, the future of Utica Avenue north
of Minnetonka Boulevard, the design of the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge to include
accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles, as well as other possible property impacts and
safety considerations.
At the February 7, 2011 Study Session, staff informed Council that Mn/DOT proposed closing
the W. 27th Street entrance ramp to southbound Highway 100 for concepts B, C, and D. Council
expressed significant concern over the proposed closure of the W. 27th Street entrance ramp and
requested staff to evaluate impacts and possible mitigation associated with that closure. Council
also expressed a desire to discuss north - south transportation needs in the City and how they
related to the proposed Highway 100 project. At the March 7, 2011 Study Session staff
presented impacts (traffic projections or shifts and right of way implications) for the various W.
27th Street entrance ramp options. Council then directed staff to conduct a meeting(s) to obtain
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
area property owner input on the ramp options, traffic impacts, access needs, and possible street
changes near the W. 27th Street ramp. Council was presented a report providing information
regarding changes in Mn/DOT’s noisewall installation practice and how that new policy was
expected to relate to the Highway 100 project.
At the June 27th Study Session, staff updated Council on results of the public involvement
process and input that had been received regarding the W. 27th Street entrance ramp options
under consideration. Council conveyed a preference to extending the ramp south to Minnetonka
Boulevard as a separate southbound ramp merging with Highway 100 exit traffic on the east side
of the Holiday Station. Council directed staff to convey their ramp preference to area residents
and respond to comments, if any. In addition, Council informed staff they desired to solicit
residents to sit on Mn/DOT’s proposed Noise Advisory Committee (NAC).
Area residents were notified of this ramp preference during July and no comments were
received. During August staff informed Mn/DOT that Council was interested in Mn/DOT
pursuing concept C with enhancements (a two way frontage road on the east side of Highway
100 south of Minnetonka Boulevard and a one way southbound frontage road on the west side of
Highway 100 south of Minnetonka Boulevard) and ramp Option D at the W. 27th Street
entrance ramp.
From September, 2011 through November, 2011, Mn/DOT conducted a Value Engineering (VE)
Study and performed a traffic modeling and operational analysis for this project. As a result of
City comments and these engineering activities, Mn/DOT developed a proposed geometric
layout for the project. This was all presented to Council at a Study Session on December 12,
2012.
1. Added an exit ramp from northbound Hwy 100 to Minnetonka Blvd
2. Eliminated the northbound connection on the east side of Hwy 100 between Hwy 7 /
Hwy 25 and Minnetonka Blvd (no longer needed due to the added exit ramp to
Minnetonka Blvd)
3. Added a southbound connection on the west side of Hwy 100 between Minnetonka
Blvd and Hwy 7
4. Revised the exit and entrance ramps on the west side of Hwy 100 at the Hwy 7
interchange. Based on a preliminary evaluation, the revised ramp intersection on the
west side of the bridge may not need to be signalized.
5. Retained the W27th Street entrance ramp as it exists except it is relocated north about
200’ (to immediately south of the existing overhead pedestrian bridge)
Mn/DOT conducted a traffic modeling and operational analysis on this new layout and has
concluded that the proposed layout will operate acceptably. Upon further comments and review,
the layout was subsequently tweaked with minor adjustments (dated February 9, 2012 and
attached) and currently represents the most current edition of the proposed layout. Staff verified
in March of 2012 (with the help of a consultant) that the layout as designed will operate
acceptably.
Recent Activity
Since the beginning of the year, staff has been meeting on a regular basis with Mn/DOT staff to
refine the layout in further detail. Hennepin County has also been engaged in this process since
Minnetonka Boulevard and CSAH 25 are County roadways. This has included discussions
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
regarding Minnetonka Boulevard, including determining an adequate bridge and roadway width
that will accommodate all transportation needs (including bicycles and pedestrians), while at the
same time limiting impacts to private property to the extent possible. The following three design
options have been identified to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians on the Minnetonka
Boulevard bridge over Hwy 100:
1. Provide space for on-road cycling with sidewalks on both sides of the bridge / road
2. Provide a multi-purpose trail on the south side of the bridge / road and a sidewalk on the
north side of the bridge / road
3. Provide multi-use trails on both sides of the bridge / road
Mn/DOT is currently seeking input from the County, City, and the public on these three options
as they continue their layout / project development process. They hope to obtain public input on
these options at the public open house scheduled for May 15.
Staff has also been gathering input and feedback from internal stakeholders such as police, fire,
and public works operations staff. In addition, staff conducted informational meetings with
residents immediately adjacent to the project on April 24 and May 1. Finally, Mn/DOT has been
performing a detailed drainage analysis and preliminary engineering with regards to addressing
storm water, utilities, and other environmental impacts, including noise.
Informational meetings were conducted for property owners on the east side of Highway 100 on
April 24 and on the west side of the highway on May 1. Reaction from residents has generally
been favorable with some concerns expressed regarding narrowing of the alley access to
properties on Toledo Avenue (north of Minnetonka Boulevard). The intent of these meetings
was essentially to gather input regarding proposed local street changes and access issues.
However, residents did ask several questions and provided some comments regarding noise
walls. While information regarding noise walls was presented in a general sense at the meetings,
information regarding specific location, design details, and the procedure for eliminating walls
was not available for presentation. Informational meetings specific to noise walls and the
determination process will be conducted by Mn/DOT sometime this summer, likely in July.
As reported at the December 12 Study Session, Mn/DOT created a Noise Advisory Committee
(NAC) to comply with the “new” federal Noise Analysis process required for this project. The
intent of the NAC has been to provide two-way communication between the community and the
project team, educate residents about the noise evaluation process, review the noise analysis
methodology and results, and provide feedback to the City Council as well as communicate
project information to neighborhood residents. The NAC has met on three occasions since the
end of last year, most recently on April 17. As a result, many residents may have a good deal of
knowledge and background information regarding this issue when Mn/DOT begins conducting
the noise wall informational meetings later this summer.
Summary and Next Steps
Mn/DOT is planning a citywide open house on May 15 to update the general public regarding
NAC activities or findings and to present the final proposed draft geometric layout and traffic
modeling results associated with that layout. Staff expects Mn/DOT to request municipal consent
from the City shortly after the public open house.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project
In summary, the following steps have been followed and are anticipated to be continued:
• Conduct noise study and NAC meetings October 2011 - April 2012
• Traffic Modeling / Operational Analysis review December 2011 - April 2012
by City and County
• Preliminary Water Resources Design December 2011 - April 2012
• Resident Subgroup Information Meetings April - May 2012
• Mn/DOT Public Open House May 15, 2012
• Municipal Consent Approval Process June-Sept 2012
• Environmental Assessment (EA) Release July 2012
• Noise Wall Determination Process July - Sept 2012
• Complete EA Process Early 2013
• Mn/DOT Develops Construction Plans Fall 2012 - Spring 2014
and Specifications
• Right of Way Acquisition May 2013 - May 2014
• Mn/DOT Opens Bids and Awards Contract Mid - Late 2014
• Construction 2015 thru 2017
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
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.
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting
St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
Attachments: Current Layout – 2 pages (April 24, 2012)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: April Crockett, West Area Engineer, Mn/DOT
Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special Study Session of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 5
Special Study Session of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Project Update - Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Page 6
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
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:
Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide staff with specific direction with regards to this subject.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to make infrastructure improvements and change traffic controls at the
Beltline Boulevard and SW LRT Regional Trail Crossing? If so, which of the following options
is preferred?
1. Option 2 - trail users have priority (right-of-way) over street users (4-lane street)
2. Option 3 - street users have priority (right-of-way) over trail users (4-lane street)
3. Option 4 - street users have priority (right-of-way) over trail users (2-lane street)
BACKGROUND:
History
At the December 12, 2011 Study Session, Council was presented with a variety of treatment
options and strategies for improving safety at the Regional Trail crossings at both Wooddale
Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. An analysis providing a variety of treatment strategies, options,
and recommendations was presented for the Council’s consideration.
Staff returned to Council at the Study Session on February 13, 2012 to discuss the options
further. At this meeting Council directed staff to continue to move forward with the Wooddale
Improvements as recommended. For the Beltline crossing, Council directed staff to investigate
other possible options further and return to Council for additional discussion at a later date.
Staff returned to Council at the Study Session on March 26, 2012 to present a proposal for
constructing a wider refuge median, along with a slight re-alignment of the trail. No consensus
was reached on this proposal; Council expressed a desire to discuss Beltline Boulevard trail
crossing concerns at a future study session.
Problem Identification
Based on the questions and concerns raised during the March 26th Study Session discussion,
staff is recommending that before proposing further technical solutions, Council concerns be
further defined and clarified with regard to the following:
1. What specifically is the perceived problem and what needs to be accomplished?
2. Clarify the “right-of-way” issue: should the crossing indicate preference/priority to
roadway users or trail users?
3. What outcomes are desired?
4. Is there a maximum cost Council does not wish to exceed to address their concerns?
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
To aid this discussion, staff has identified the following factors that appear relevant to this
discussion:
1. Trail user safety vs. street user safety
2. Trail user traffic flow vs. street user traffic flow
3. The wide variation and range of trail users: young to old users , inexperienced to
experienced users, commuter users, recreational users, slow speed to high speed use, safe
to high risk behaviors of users
4. Time to implement a particular improvement or crossing change
5. Safety, traffic, and construction impacts to neighboring properties, including adjacent
railroad and street intersections
6. Roadway vs. trail user right-of-way along with reducing or eliminating confusion
amongst users
7. Input and/or requirements of other agencies (Hennepin County Regional Railroad
Authority, Three Rivers Park District, CP Rail, SLP PD, etc.)
8. Estimated costs
9. Other?
Possible Options
In accordance with State and Federal studies and guidelines, the recent improvements
recommended by staff were associated with an unmarked trail crossing, which indicates that
street users have priority over trail users. If Council desires trail users to have priority over street
users, a signalized marked crosswalk is recommended under the existing roadway conditions. In
order to assist in the discussion of a preference, the following options are presented for
consideration:
Four-lane undivided roadway – trail user preference (Option 2)
A traffic control device should be used with this roadway cross-section. The device could
either be warning flashers, traffic signal or “hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal; however, Public
Works staff recommends a signal be installed. A striped crosswalk should also be re-
installed. Installation of a traffic signal device will require coordination with the railroad and
integration with their existing signal system.
Four-lane divided roadway – street user preference (Option 3)
This option includes the Public Works staff recommendation to realign the east curb line and
widen Beltline Boulevard along with installation of a wider median in the roadway at the trail
crossing. The width of the median would be increased to 12’ to provide a larger refuge for
trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists and bicyclists with buggies). Roadway traffic would not be
required to stop, therefore a crosswalk should not be striped so signing and markings would
remain as they currently exist.
Two-lane divided roadway – street user preference (Option 4)
A wide median (approximately 22’ in width) would be constructed in the roadway at the trail
crossing. Roadway traffic would not be required to stop; therefore a crosswalk should not be
striped. The shorter crossing distance (approximately 13’ on each side) would make crossing
easier for trail users. The crossing in the median could be angled to allow better visibility for
all users. The roadway transition from two lanes to one lane south of the CSAH 25
intersection could be difficult. Additionally, traffic complications could occur at the Beltline
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
Boulevard/Park Glen Road intersection. This option could be done as a pilot on a trial basis
with temporary traffic controls to evaluate effectiveness as well as traffic issues north and
south of the crossing.
Exhibit 1 contains staff developed ratings of the trail crossing alternatives described above
based on the nine factors previously discussed herein.
Summary and Next Steps
The options presented here are a direct result of the discussions and analysis that has occurred to
date. The options have been developed given the context of the roadway condition (marked vs.
unmarked crosswalk, two-lane vs. four-lane roadway, etc.). Based on staffs understanding of the
discussions and analysis to date, the four options identified above, and rated in Exhibit 1, are
acceptable for use at this at-grade crossing. Certain components of each alternative have been
added to incorporate a factor of safety for the crossing condition.
Public Works staff would like Council to provide a recommendation based on these options.
Following Council direction, staff is prepared to begin work immediately on any of the crossing
options provided above.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds have not been specifically designated for any of the improvements listed and would need
to be pursued from a combination of other sources including Municipal State Aid, Development
Funds, General Funds, and other stakeholders such as Three Rivers Park District.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives – Beltline Boulevard
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Beltline Boulevard Trail Improvement Options
EXHIBIT 1
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives – Beltline Boulevard
Option Crossing Option
Traffic Flows Safety Complexity Implementation
Time Cost Roadway Trail Roadway Trail Roadway Trail
1 Do nothing Good Poor Fair Fair Mid High none $0
2
4-Lane, Traffic
Signal with marked
Crosswalk
Fair Fair Fair Fair Low Low 12 - 18 months $150,000
3
4-Lane, Center
Median with 12’
Refuge
Good Fair to
Poor
Good to
Fair
Good to
Fair Mid Mid - High 6 months $150,000
4
2-Lane, Center
Median with large
Refuge
Fair Fair Fair Fair Low - Mid Mid (a) 1 - 2 weeks
(b) 3 - 4 months
(a) $20,000
(b) $50,000
(a) Time and cost to implement a pilot installation with temporary work zone traffic controls
(b) Time and costs to implement a constructed installation with raised median and permanent traffic controls
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
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:
None. Staff is providing information requested by Council at the Study Session of April 16,
2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Based on Council input obtained over the past year, Staff has developed definitions and
classified sidewalks as either “Community” or “Neighborhood”; has developed maps showing
final proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems; has compiled a list of improvements
Council would like to discuss further; and, has provided information to previously asked Council
questions.
Staff intends to seek Council direction at the May 14th Study Session on:
• Does Council agree with the “Community” sidewalk classifications proposed by staff
(Exhibit A)? If not, what changes are desired?
• 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?
• Does Council need any additional information?
• Is Council comfortable with next steps as presented in this report?
BACKGROUND:
History - At the April 16th Study Session Council requested:
1. Revisions be made to the definition of “Community” sidewalk
2. Revisions be made to the “Goals and Objectives” associated with the plan
3. Staff compile a list of improvements Council members do not feel comfortable including
in the plan along with rationale used to explain why the improvements were included in
the plan
4. Provide prioritization criteria listing rationale used in plan development
5. Provide a list of improvements by street name
6. Exhibits (maps) be revised so street names could be seen
Follow Up Actions – based on Council comments from April 16th, staff has:
1. revised the definition of Community and Neighborhood sidewalks to with regard to
“activity nodes” – see attached Exhibit 1
2. revised the “Purpose and Goals” as directed by Council – see attached Exhibit 2
3. Compiled a list of improvements that Council would like to discuss further – see attached
Exhibit 3
4. Staff has reviewed the principles and prioritization criteria used in developing the plan
and still finds them relevant:
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
In general the system plan provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and
bikeways every ½-mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
throughout the community. Both the system plan and the set of general criteria
for prioritizing the pedestrian and bike improvements was generated through
community input from a Citizen Advisory Committee, Community Meeting, 205
online survey responses, and meetings with Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission, and City Council. In addition, general support
for the goals has been vetted through the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood
process, Community Survey, and Community Recreation Survey. Plan
development and prioritization was tied directly to public health, safety and well-
being. The system plan and goals were adopted in the Comprehensive Plan in
2009.
The logic behind prioritization and plan implementation is based on the following
objectives:
• Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering
centers in the community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rate
higher.
• Focus on Transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through
the community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rate higher.
• Focus on Bicycling and Walking: the ultimate goal is to provide a quarter-mile
“city” grid of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill
gaps in the city pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain
intersections, and provide crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and
highway barriers rate higher.
5. Listed the planned improvements by street name – see Exhibit 4
6. Included earlier exhibits updated to include street names on the maps – see Exhibits A
thru G
Proposed Future Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway Systems
Based on Council input, staff previously 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 previously developed a map (Exhibit B) which depicts the
proposed future sidewalk system (estimated 2023 completion). In addition, staff 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
At the next Study Session, staff would like Council input on the following in order to finalize the
proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems:
1. Classification of sidewalks
2. Removal or addition of improvements to the proposed plan
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
The following tentative process and schedule has been developed to aid in implementing this
plan:
Council reviews and determines sidewalk classifications (Community
vs. Neighborhood) May 14
Council reviews and determines future proposed sidewalk, trail, and
bikeway systems May 14
Council reviews and determines CIP priorities May 29
Council considers remaining policy questions May 29
Council reviews financial and public involvement plans June 11
Staff conducts public involvement / input process July - October
Council adopts proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems along
with, final policies, and the CIP
November - December
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.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
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 assessing if
this is in alignment with the community vision. In that regard, the Active Living, Sidewalks and
Trail Plan recommended an approach to developing citywide pedestrian and bicycling systems,
addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their importance. It suggested a
strategy for implementation and identified preliminary costs. It looked at how existing areas of
concern might be improved and where and how new walks and trails should be installed.
Vision: 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 1 – Definition of Walks
Exhibit 2 – Purpose and Goals
Exhibit 3 – Council Identified Improvements of Concern
Exhibit 4 – Improvements Listed by Street Name
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: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Exhibit 1
Definition of Walks
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 (generally viewed as community or area destinations, e.g., the
Library, schools, retail areas, major parks, etc.
• 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 “Community” walks. 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
• Close or immediate destinations
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Page 4
Exhibit 2
Purpose and Goals
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 approximately every ¼-mile
establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities approximately 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.
• Provide for walks along high traffic pedestrian and street use areas.
• 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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Page 5
ID Ward Request Item Street /
Location
Termini Rationale to Include Segment in Plan
1 2 Remove SW
W 41st St (south
side) West of Wooddale
This is an important connector sidewalk for several reasons:
• It is part of a larger east-west pedestrian route from Alabama Avenue to
Susan Lindgren Elementary School
• It connects to a valuable public infrastructure investment: a pedestrian
bridge over Highway 100 (the next closest crossing to the south is 44th
Street approximately ½ mile away)
• It provides an alternate to walking along busy Excelsior Boulevard and
thru the Highway 100 interchange area
2 4 Remove SW
All in ward 4 -
no need for more
walks
This plan (including ward 4 proposed improvements) was developed based on
the community “Vision” process and subsequent Council direction. The
“Vision” process is viewed as having determined / assessed the public need
and support for additional sidewalks, trails, and bikeways in the community.
3 1 Remove SW
Cedar Lake Rd
(south side)
France Ave west to
the ped bridge /
Cedar Lake trail
This is an important connector sidewalk for several reasons:
• It connects to France Avenue and Minneapolis Grand Rounds and Chain
of Lakes to the east
• It is connects directly to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
• It connects to a valuable public infrastructure investment: 1 of only 3
bridge connections across the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in St.
Louis Park (the next closest bridge crossing is almost two miles away at
Louisiana Avenue)
• It is part of the Cedar Lake Road east-west route through St. Louis Park
• It connects to the Jewish Community Center, West End, Lifetime Fitness,
and points beyond
4 1 Remove SW
Basswood Rd /
W25th St. (north
side)
France Ave to
proposed BSM /
Twin Lakes Park
trail
This sidewalk was included for several reasons:
• to provide an east-west connection at a ¼-mile interval (approximately
halfway between the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and 26th Street)
• It connects France Avenue to Twin Lakes Park, Benilde/St. Margaret’s,
Parkwoods Road, and the Hwy 100 east frontage road
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 6
5 1 Remove SW
Raleigh Ave
(west side)
Minnetonka Blvd to
W. 27th St.
The main reason for this segment was the pedestrian bridge across CSAH
25/Hwy 7, which is accessed from Raleigh:
• This link will encourage north-south foot traffic to use the pedestrian
bridge
• At the north end it connects to Beth El/BSM and there seems to be fewer
cars west of the relatively busy 25½ Street/26th Street intersection so
pedestrians cross with fewer conflicts
6 3 Remove SW
W33rd St (south
side)
Texas Ave east to
Rhode Island Ave
(Lou Oaks Park)
This is an important connector sidewalk because it is part of a larger east-west
pedestrian route from the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail across a pedestrian
bridge over Louisiana Avenue ending at Dakota Avenue. This route serves the
High School, Library, Louisiana Oaks Park, Oak Hill Park, and Aquila Park.
7 1 TBD SW
Pending Sorenson
Neighborhood Input
Neighborhood Ass’n representatives are discussing needs regarding addition
or removal of sidewalks in their area
8 1 Revise
Tr to
BW Toledo Ave
W28th St to W26th
St
A trail is proposed to provide for a more consistent facility-type connection
between the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and the Cedar Lake LRT Trail.
9 1 Revise SW
Zarthan Ave
(east side -
change to west
side)
Lake St north to
Minnetonka Blvd
Staff supports this suggestion
10 3 Add SW
W34th St (south
side)
Aquila Lane S east
to Aquila Ave S
11 1 Add SW
Joppa Ave (west
side)
Minnetonka Blvd
north to Sunset Ave
12 1 Add Tr Twin Lakes Park
Existing Twin Lakes
Park trail to
proposed BSM trail
13 1 Add
Tr /
Br
east Hwy 100
frontage road
W23rd St. over
BNRR to Cedar
Lake Road
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 7
SW
Order Ward Project Tpye Class Location (on or along)Side Begin End
1 1,2 B L Beltline Blvd na CSAH 25 36th St
2 1 B L France Ave na N City Limits Minnetonka Blvd
3 1,3 B L Lake St na Walker St Minnetonka Blvd
4 1 BW 26th St na Edgewood Ave Dakota Ave
5 1 BW 26th St na Toledo Ave France Ave
6 1 BW 27th St na Webster Ave Utica Ave
7 1 BW 28th St na Quentin Ave Ottawa Ave
8 1 BW 28th St na Yosemite Ave Webster Ave
9 1,3 BW 28th St na Texas Ave Zarthan Ave
10 1 BW Cedar Lake Road na North Cedar Lake Regional Trail France Ave
11 1,3 BW Dakota Ave na 26th St Wooddale Ave
12 1 BW Minnetonka Blvd na Vernon Ave France Ave
13 1 BW Ottawa Ave na CSAH 25 Minnetonka Blvd
14 1 BW Ottawa Ave na 28th St Minnetonka Blvd
15 1 BW Quentin Ave na 26th St 28th St
16 1 BW Utica Ave na 27th St 26th St Ped Bridge
17 1 BW Webster Ave na 28th St 27th St
18 1,2 BW Wooddale Ave na Lake St 36th St
19 1 SW C 25 1/2 St south and west Hwy 100 26th St
20 1 SW C Basswood Road / 25th St north west end of 25th St France Ave
21 1 SW C Cedar Lake Road south North Cedar Lake Regional Trail France Ave
22 1 SW C France Ave west 22nd St 26th St
23 1 SW N Hamilton St south Alabama Ave Zarthan Ave
24 1 SW N Ottawa Ave east and west 28th St 29th St
25 1 SW N Quentin Ave east 28th St 200' north of 28th St
26 1 SW N Quentin Ave east 26th St 27th St
27 1 SW N Raleigh Ave west Minnetonka Blvd 27th St
28 1 SW N Zarthan Ave west 33rd St Hamilton St
29 1 SW N Zarthan Ave east south of Minnetonka Blvd Lake St
30 1,4 Tr / Br Edgewood Ave na BNSF RR BNSF RR
31 1 Tr / Br Hwy 100 west 26th St (Ped Br)Cedar Lake Road
32 1 Tr Toledo Ave west Minnetonka Blvd 27th St
33 1 Tr / Br Twin Lakes Park / BSM na 25th St Parkwoods Road
1 2 B L 36th St na Monterey Dr Alabama Ave
2 2,1 B L Beltline Blvd na CSAH 25 36th St
3 2 B L Monterey Dr na 36th St Excelsior Blvd
4 2 BW 38th St na Excelsior Blvd France Ave
5 2 BW Alabama Ave na 36th St 41st St
6 2 BW Brookside Ave na 41st St Yosemite Ave
7 2 BW France Ave na Randall Ave 40th St
8 2 BW Park Commons Drive na Quentin Ave Monterey Dr
9 2 BW Quentin Ave na 44th St Park Commons Dr
10 2 BW Texas Ave na Hwy 7 SW LRT Regional Trail
11 2,1 BW Wooddale Ave na Lake St 36th St
12 2 SW N 36 1/2 St north Monterey Dr Excelsior Blvd
13 2 SW N 39th St south Inglewood Ave France Ave
14 2 SW N 39th St south Natchez Ave Inglewood Ave
Proposed Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway CIP
( Sorted by Ward, Type, and Street Name )
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 8
SW
Order Ward Project Tpye Class Location (on or along)Side Begin End
Proposed Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway CIP
( Sorted by Ward, Type, and Street Name )
15 2 SW C 41st St south Hwy 100 Wooddale Ave
16 2 SW C Brookside Ave north 42nd St Yosemite Ave
17 2 SW N Browndale Ave west 43 1/2 St 1/4 block north of 43 1/2 St
18 2 SW C Browndale Ave west Wooddale Ave Morningside Road
19 2 SW C Excelsior Blvd south Louisiana Ave Meadowbrook Blvd
20 2 SW C Louisiana Ave west Lake St Oxford St
21 2 SW C Louisiana Ave west Excelsior Blvd Minnehaha Creek
22 2 SW C Morningside Road north Mackey Ave Browndale Ave
23 2 SW C Morningside Road south Wooddale Ave East City Limits
24 2 SW N Quentin Ave west Excelsior Blvd 40th St
25 2 SW C Wooddale Ave west Excelsior Blvd Vernon Ave
26 2 Tr Beltline Blvd west CSAH 25 36th St
27 2 Tr / Br Minnehaha Creek south Louisiana Ave west side of Meadowbrook Complex
28 2 Tr / Br Minnehaha Creek north west side of Meadowbrook Complex Meadow Brook Road
1 3,1 B L Lake St na Walker St Minnetonka Blvd
2 3 B L Texas Ave na 28th St Hwy 7
3 3,1 BW 28th St na Texas Ave Zarthan Ave
4 3 BW 28th St na Virginia Ave Texas Ave
5 3 BW 33rd St na Louisiana Ave Dakota Ave
6 3 BW 33rd St na Virginia Ave Rhode Island Ave
7 3 BW 36th St na Hwy 169 Texas Ave
8 3,1 BW Dakota Ave na 26th St Wooddale Ave
9 3,4 BW Virginia Ave na Cedar Lake Road 28th St
10 3 BW Walker St na Texas Ave Lake St
11 3 SW C 28th St south Virginia Ave Texas Ave
12 3 SW N 31st St south Dakota Ave Colorado Ave
13 3 SW N 31st St south Texas Ave Dakota Ave
14 3 SW C 33rd St south Texas Ave Rhode Island Ave
15 3 SW N 33rd St south Aquila Ave Virginia Ave
16 3 SW C 36th St south Aquila Ave Wyoming Ave
17 3 SW C Aquila Ave east Minnetonka Blvd 1/2 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
18 3 SW C Aquila Ave / 34th St south Flag Ave Cavell Lane
19 3 SW C Aquila Lane south Cavell Lane one block north of Cavell Lane
20 3 SW C Flag Ave east 34th St 36th St
21 3 SW N Georgia Ave east Minnetonka Blvd 31st St
22 3 SW N Jersey Ave east Minnetonka Blvd 1/4 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
23 3 SW N Jersey Ave west Minnetonka Blvd 1/4 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
24 3 SW N Maryland Ave east and west Minnetonka Blvd 1/4 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
25 3 SW N Quebec Ave west 31st St Oak Hill Park
26 3,4 SW C Virginia Ave west 28th St Cedar Lake Road
27 3 SW C Walker St south east of Pennsylvania Ave 37th St (frontage road)
28 3 Tr 32nd St south Pennsylvania Ave Oregon Ave
29 3 Tr Louisiana Ave west 32nd St Walker St
30 3 Tr Walker St north Louisiana Ave west of 37th St
1 4 B L Louisiana Ave na Wayzata Blvd Excelsior Blvd
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 9
SW
Order Ward Project Tpye Class Location (on or along)Side Begin End
Proposed Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway CIP
( Sorted by Ward, Type, and Street Name )
2 4 B L Quentin Ave na Douglas Ave Cedar Lake Road
3 4 B L Shelard Parkway na Betty Crocker Dr Wayzata Blvd
4 4 B L Wayzata Blvd na Ford Road 14th St
5 4 B L Zarthan Ave na Cedar Lake Road Wayzata Blvd
6 4 BL Texas Ave na Wayzata Blvd Cedar Lake Road
7 4 BW 14th St na Wayzata Blvd Flag Ave
8 4 BW Cedar Lake Road na Hwy 169 Louisiana Ave
9 4 BW Cedar Lake Road na Louisiana Ave North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
10 4 BW Edgewood Ave na Cedar Lake Road BNSF RR
11 4 BW Flag, Westmoreland, and Franklin Ave's na 14th St Texas Ave
12 4 BW Ford Road na Runnymeade Ave Crestridge Dr
13 4 BW Park Place Blvd na I-394 Cedar Lake Road
14 4 BW Quentin Ave na Louisiana Ave Pennsylvania Ave
15 4,3 BW Virginia Ave na Cedar Lake Road 28th St
16 4 BW Wayzata Blvd na Texas Ave Zarthan Ave
17 4 BW Wayzata Blvd na Park Place Blvd East City Limits
18 4 SW C 14th St west and south Wayzata Blvd Flag Ave
19 4 SW C 18th St south Hillsboro Ave Flag Ave
20 4 SW N 25th St north 26th St Sumter Ave
21 4 SW N 26th St north Virginia Ave 25th St
22 4 SW C Cedar Lake Road south Texas Ave Virginia Ave
23 4 SW C Cedar Lake Road south 16th St Zarthan Ave
24 4 SW C Edgewood Ave east Cedar Lake Road BNSF RR
25 4 SW C Flag Ave west 18th St Franklin Ave
26 4 SW C Franklin Ave south Hampshire Ave Cedar Lake Road
27 4 SW C Hillsboro Ave west 14th St Franklin Ave
28 4 SW C Louisiana Ave east Cedar Lake Road Wayzata Blvd
29 4 SW C Pennsylvania Ave east Cedar Lake Road 16th St
30 4 SW C Quentin Ave east Douglas Ave Cedar Lake Road
31 4 SW N Sumter Ave west Cedar Lake Road 25th St
32 4 SW C Texas Ave west Cedar Lake Road Wayzata Blvd
33 4,3 SW C Virginia Ave west 28th St Cedar Lake Road
34 4 SW C Westmoreland / Franklin Aves north 14th St Westwood Nature Center
35 4 SW C Zarthan west 16th St Cedar Lake Road
36 4,1 Tr / Br Edgewood Ave na BNSF RR BNSF RR
Sidewalk (SW)Splits - a portion in two wards
Bikeway (BW)
Bike Lane (BL)
Trail (Tr)
Bridge (Br)
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 10
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Page 11
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
3 6TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NING SIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
P OWELL R D
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA R K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RR
CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STA NLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK C OM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD R D
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA
AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED A R L AK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23 RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FR A N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit B
Proposed Future Sidewalk System
4-23-2012tw
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Page 12
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESH ELAR D PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36 TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
D OU GLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA RK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RR
CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG
A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT
I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANL EN R D
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPAR K COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARW OOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEH AHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C E D AR L AK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14 TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L IN AV E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
2 2N D S T BRUNSWICK AVE16T H ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEA62
A6A
2
7 A37A38
A17 A28A18
Exhibit C
Proposed Future Trail System
4-24-2012tw
Legend
Existing Trails
Future Trails
Future Bridges
.
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Page 13
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPAR K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
VE
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIGHWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHACT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
CED AR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA NK L I N A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit D
Proposed Future Bikeway System .
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Future Bikeways
Existing Bikeways
Continuation in adjacent City
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Page 14
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOOD RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPA RK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLEN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T LN
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED AR LA KE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L I N AV E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit E
Proposed Future "Pedestrian" System
4-24-2012tw
Legend
Sidewalks
Trails
Future Bridges
.(Sidewalks and Trails)
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 15
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPAR K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
VE
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIGHWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHACT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
CED AR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA NK L I N A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit F
Proposed Future "Biking" System
.
4-24-2012tw
Legend
Bikeways
Trails
Future Bridges
Continuation in adjacent City
(Trails and Bikeways)
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 16
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOOD RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPARK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
A
R LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T LN
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA
AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C EDAR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH S T
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit G
Existing Sidewalk System
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
4/23/2011tw
±
(Sidewalk Systems 2012)
Special Study Session Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 17
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 16, 2012
1. Call to Order
President Santa called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Sue Santa, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes March 5, 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 Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to accept for
filing Vendor Claims for the period February 2, 2012, through April 6, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Jacobs absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Subordination Agreement in Connection with West End Apartments (West
End Redevelopment Phase IIC)
EDA Resolution No. 12-06
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that on October 4, 2010, WEA, LLC,
assumed the rights and obligations of the Amended and Restated Contract for Private
Redevelopment related to the West End redevelopment and specifically agreed to assume
EDA Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
the obligation to construct Phase IIC of that project. He stated that under that assumption
agreement, the EDA agreed to subordinate its rights to the holder of any mortgage
securing construction or permanent financing related to the housing development as long
as such subordination is subject to reasonable terms and conditions. He indicated that
WEA, LLC, has a loan with Greenbridge Real Estate Capital which is financing the
construction of the West End Apartments. The proposed Subordination Agreement
asserts that the EDA’s rights under the Contract are subordinate to the lender’s rights
under the loan documents related to the project however the EDA does not subordinate its
interest under the Assessment Agreement for the project. He added that the
Subordination Agreement is based on previous subordination agreements and
recommended for approval by legal counsel.
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 12-06 Approving a Subordination Agreement Between the Authority
and Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Jacobs absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: May 7, 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 April 7 through April 27, 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
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:48R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
403.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
403.00
195.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
97.50TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
48.75PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
536.25ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
840.00HOIGAARD VILLAGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,717.50
5,323.007015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRATTALONE COMPANIES INC
266.05-DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE RETAINED PERCENTAGE
5,056.95
6,968.41DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
6,968.41
5,000.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCCD
5,000.00
225.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
225.00
232.27DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
232.27
13.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
13.50
1,971.98DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
1,971.98
2,009.88DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
2,009.88
Report Totals 23,598.49
EDA Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
Internal Loan for Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area
(HIA)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing an internal loan for advance of funds in connection with
housing improvements within the established Greensboro Condominium Owners Association
HIA (“Greensboro HIA”), which was established on December 5, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
As discussed with the City Council at the December 5, 2011 Council Meeting, the HIA loan to
finance the improvements within the Greensboro HIA is being funded with a combination of
bonds and internal funding. This action authorizes the internal loan for advancing the funds.
State Statute authorizes cities to establish HIA’s 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.
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2011 the Council established Ordinance 2406-11 establishing the Greensboro
HIA and passed Resolution No. 11-134 imposing fees. This was done in response to Greensboro
Condominium Owners Association’s petition to the Council to conduct a public hearing
regarding the establishment of Greensboro Condominium Owners Association as an HIA.
The total project costs are approximately $3,571,000, of which approximately $2,950,000 is for
construction costs (remainder is for soft costs, bond issuance costs and capitalized interest). The
City received $1,047,260 in prepaid special assessments. This means the City will need to loan
the association approximately $2,525,000 to pay for all costs associated with the project.
Approximately $1,450,000 will be financed through the issuance of the City’s taxable general
obligation HIA bonds. The remainder of the cost, in the amount of approximately $1,075,000
will be financed through a loan of funds from the EDA’s Development Fund. Both the bonds
and the EDA loan will be repaid to the City from the HIA fees collected with the real estate taxes
of the property owners located in the Greensboro HIA. Both the bonds and the EDA loan will
have a twenty year term, and the interest rate on the EDA loan will be set at the interest rate on
the bonds, with a finalized EDA loan payment schedule to be prepared upon issuance of the
bonds. Any of the remaining 191 property owners that did not prepay their HIA fee will have
the opportunity to prepay at any time during the 20-year term of the bonds and EDA loan.
The bond sale is currently scheduled for late September and will incorporate the bond proceeds
needed to finance a portion of the Westwood HIA. This is being done to take advantage of cost
savings in issuing the bonds together. Since Greensboro HIA is moving forward with
EDA Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Internal Loan for Greensboro Condominium Owners Association HIA
improvements now, the EDA will need to potentially lend the City the full $2,525,000 of the
project costs, since the prepaid HIA fees will not be adequate to cover the construction costs and
the bond proceeds won’t be available until October. Since the funds are being loaned from the
EDA to the City, this constitutes an internal loan and a resolution authorizing the loan is required
by the EDA. The internal loan will be for an amount up to $2,525,000 and only the amount of
funds needed to pay for project costs will be advanced. A portion of this internal loan will be
repaid to the EDA when bond proceeds are received in October (the remaining will be repaid
through collection of the HIA fees).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed method of financing the Greensboro HIA improvements results in the City lending
Greensboro Condominium Owners Association a total of approximately $2,525,000, a portion of
which will come from the EDA Development Fund. The City’s Controller is involved in
structuring the loan and ensuring that assessment procedures are followed. The executed
Development Agreement with the Association ensures that the loan is secured by Association
Assets, defined as dues, fees, assessments and other income owing to the Association from unit
owners. Owners had the option to prepay prior to the fees being assessed and avoid interest
costs, and 69 owners chose this option. For those that did not prepay, fees will be payable with
property taxes beginning in 2013 with the option to prepay in future years.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Greensboro Condominium Owners Association HIA improvements are consistent with
Vision St. Louis Park and the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council: “St. Louis Park
is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The HIA tool
addresses affordably valued, aging owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock.
The proposed improvements specifically address the focus of property maintenance to foster
quality housing and community aesthetics.
Attachments: EDA Loan Resolution
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director
EDA Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Internal Loan for Greensboro Condominium Owners Association HIA
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
AUTHORIZING AN INTERNAL LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF FUNDS
IN CONNECTION WITH HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS
WITHIN THE GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION
HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“EDA”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 428A.11 to 428.21 (the "Housing Improvement 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. The
City Council of the City (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16,
2001.
1.02. In order to facilitate Housing Improvements to property known as the
"Greensboro Condominium Owners Association" the Council on December 5, 2011, established
the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area by Ordinance
No. 2406-11 (the "Enabling Ordinance") and approved a Housing Improvement Fee (the “Fee”)
by Resolution 11-134.
1.03. For the purposes of this Resolution, the terms "Greensboro Condominium Owners
Association Housing Improvement Area" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings
provided in the Enabling Ordinance.
1.04. The City has entered into a Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) between
the City and the Greensboro Condominium Owners Association (the “Association”) under which
the City will make a loan of funds legally available for such purpose (the “Loan”) to the
Association to finance the Housing Improvements as described in the Agreement.
1.05. Upon approval of the Internal Loan the City will transfer funds in the amount of
up to $2,525,000 (the “Loan Amount”) from any account or accounts determined by the City
Controller into a Greensboro Condominium Owners Association Housing Improvement Area
Project Fund (the “Project Fund”) hereby established. Pursuant to the Agreement, the intended
source of the Loan is the Development Fund administered and controlled by the EDA. The City
will disburse funds in the Project Fund to the Association in accordance with Article III of the
Agreement, and will reimburse the EDA from the Fee revenues together with any amounts
received from the Association under the terms of Section 6.6 of the Agreement.
1.06. The EDA has determined to specify the terms of the Loan in more detail in this
resolution.
EDA Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Internal Loan for Greensboro Condominium Owners Association HIA
Section 2. Repayment of the Loan Amount.
2.01. The Loan Amount, together with interest accruing from January 1, 2013, shall be
repaid over a 20-year term in semi-annual installments of principal and interest ("Payments") on
each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 2013. Interest shall accrue on the
unpaid principal at the same rate as the interest rate on the taxable general obligation housing
improvement area bonds to be issued by the City to finance a portion of the Housing
Improvements (the “Bonds”). Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City Clerk shall cause to be
prepared a finalized schedule of Payments, which schedule shall be attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A.
2.02. Payments on the Loan Amount will be made solely from Fee Revenues as defined
in the Agreement, together with any amounts received from the Association under Section 6.6 of
the Agreement. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal.
Payments on the Loan Amount shall be subordinate to payments on the Bonds.
2.03. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this resolution is pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the City without premium or penalty. No partial
prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to
be made.
2.04. The Housing Improvements are evidence of an internal borrowing by the City,
which is a limited obligation payable solely from Fee Revenues pledged to the payment hereof
under this resolution together with any amounts received from the Association under the terms of
Section 6.6 of the Agreement. The internal loan for the Housing Improvements shall not be
deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision
thereof, including, without limitation, the City of St. Louis Park. Neither the State of Minnesota,
nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the
Loan Amount or other costs incident hereto except out of Fee Revenues. The City shall have no
obligation to pay any principal amount of the Loan Amount or accrued interest thereon, which
may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date.
2.05. The City Controller is authorized and directed to draw monies from the EDA
Development Fund for disbursements of the Loan Amount, and to credit repayments under this
resolution to the EDA development fund.
2.06. City staff and officials are authorized and directed to execute any collateral
documents and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.
2.07. The City or EDA may at any time determine to forgive the outstanding principal
amount and accrued interest on the Loan Amount to the extent permissible under law.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon execution in full of the
Agreement.
EDA Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Internal Loan for Greensboro Condominium Owners Association HIA
Approved by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority this 7th day of May 7, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
May 7, 2012
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2a
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:
Recognition of Board and Commission Members
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. The Mayor is asked to read the attached Proclamation honoring all volunteer commissioners.
2. The Mayor is asked to recognize the following outgoing Board and Commission members.
(We have contacted each of these commissioners and do not expect any to be in attendance.)
• Darla Aman – Human Rights Commission (March 2011-December 2011)
• Christina Barberot – Parks & Rec Advisory Commission (March 2009-December 2011)
• Matthew Flory – Police Advisory Commission (March 2010-January 2012)
• Sam Flumerfelt – Parks & Rec Advisory Commission - Youth (August 2009-June 2011)
• Lordia Fok – Human Rights Commission (March 2011-January 2012)
• Andrew Ford – Planning Commission – Youth (March 2009-August 2011)
• Steve Hallfin – Parks & Rec Advisory Commission (April 2004-December 2011)
• Trinicia Hill – Housing Authority (August 2006-March 2012)
• Ken Huiras – Police Advisory Commission (March 2009-December 2011)
• Allison Knoche-Prosser – Human Rights Commission (August 2009-December 2011)
• Stuart Morgan – Human Rights Commission (February 2008-August 2011)
• Michael Mulligan – Telecommunications Advisory Commission (July 2008-Dec. 2011)
• Jenna Sheldon–Telecommunications Advisory Commission Youth (Nov. 2010-Oct. 2011)
• Isabella Stewart – Human Rights Commission Youth (December 2009-August 2011)
• Alexa Trussoni-Cushman – Police Advisory Commission (March 2009-December 2011)
• Brittney Turner – Charter Commission (February 2008-August 2011)
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park has had a long-standing tradition of citizen involvement in all aspects
of city government. Citizen involvement improves the quality and responsiveness of public
decision making. An opportunity to do that is by serving as a commissioner on one of the City’s
nine boards and commissions.
It is because of the commitment of citizen representatives on the various boards and
commissions that staff requests the City Council honor these individuals for their past service to
the community and recognize the contributions they have made.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Recognition of Board and Commission Members
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Recognizing citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a connected and
engaged community.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – Administrative Services
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: Recognition of Board and Commission Members
PROCLAMATION
Honoring Boards and Commissions Volunteers
WHEREAS, various Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory capacity to
the City of St. Louis Park City Council and are conferred various degrees of decision
making power of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park welcomes its citizens to share their talents
and perspectives by serving on an advisory Board or Commission;
WHEREAS, citizen involvement enhances the quality and responsiveness of
public decision making and the progress of the community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers are an essential part of St. Louis
Park, vital to our future as a caring and productive community; and integral to our vision
of becoming a connected and engaged community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to selflessly give their
compassion, time, and commitment to better their community and the lives of others; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to make a difference
through their hard work, dedication and outstanding contributions to the City of St. Louis
Park; and
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park do hereby commend volunteer members of St. Louis Park Boards
and Commissions for their dedicated service and outstanding contributions to improving
the quality of lives of others, and supporting our community and its people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 7th day of May, 2012.
______________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
2012 National Public Works Week Proclamation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read and present a Proclamation to proclaim May 20 – 26, 2012, as
“National Public Works Week”.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The American Public Works Association (APWA) has selected “Creating a Lasting Impression”
as its theme for 2012’s National Public Works Week, which will be celebrated May 20-26. The
theme’s dual purpose is both a celebration and a caution as it reminds us of how far public works
has progressed and, yet, how far it has to go in assuring the highest quality infrastructure
possible.
National Public Works Week (NPWW) is a celebration of the tens of thousands of men and
women in North America who provide and maintain the infrastructure and services collectively
known as public works.
Instituted as a public education campaign by the American Public Works Association (APWA)
in 1960, NPWW calls attention to the importance of public works in community life. The Week
seeks to enhance the prestige of the often–unsung heroes of our society–the professionals who
serve the public good every day with quiet dedication.
APWA encourages public works agencies and professionals to take the opportunity to make their
stories known in their communities. Over the years the observances have taken many forms,
including parades, displays of public works equipment, high school essay contests, open houses,
programs for civic organizations and media events. The occasion is marked each year with
scores of resolutions and proclamations from mayors and governors, as well. Some special
highlights of NPWW include a United States Senate resolution affirming the first National
Public Works Week in 1960, letters of acknowledgment from Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and
Lyndon Johnson, and a Presidential Proclamation signed by John F. Kennedy in 1962.
From the beginning, the selection of a Top Ten list of exceptional public works professionals has
been a cornerstone of NPWW. The program has identified more than 400 men and women who
reflect the highest standards of professional conduct for public works officials. These honorees
have been recognized for discharging critical responsibilities in connection to the design,
construction, maintenance and/or operation of major public works projects or activities in large
and small municipalities throughout North America. Often their accomplishments are
particularly noteworthy in relation to the limited manpower and financial resources available to
them.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Subject: 2012 National Public Works Week Proclamation
National Public Works Week is observed each year during the third full week of May. Through
NPWW and other efforts, APWA seeks to raise the public’s awareness of public works issues
and to increase confidence in public works employees who are dedicated to improving the
quality of life for present and future generations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Proclamation – National Public Works Week
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 2b) Page 3
Subject: 2012 National Public Works Week Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
National Public Works Week
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an
integral part of our citizens’ everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of understanding and informed citizenry is vital to
the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water,
sewers, streets and highways, public buildings, and solid waste collection; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly
depends on these facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their
planning, design, and construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of
public works officials; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who
staff public works departments is materially influenced by the people’s attitude and
understanding of the importance of the work they perform,
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of
the City of St. Louis Park wish to proclaim the week of May 20 – 26, 2012 as
“NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK” and call upon all citizens and civic
organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our
public works and to recognize the contributions which public works officials make
every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park
to be affixed this 7nd day of May, 2012
____________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 9, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:38 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), Police Chief
(Mr. Luse), Police Lieutenant (Ms. Dreier), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Harcey), Community Liaison
(Ms. Olson), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Communications Coordinator (Mr.
Zwilling), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Community Development Director (Mr.
Locke), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planner (Mr. Fulton), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Brian Johnson (HRC Chair), Jim Smith (PAC Chair), Catherine Courtney (Housing
Authority Chair), Justin Kaufman, Susan Metzger, and Renee DuFour (Housing Authority
Members), and Jeff Miller (HKGi).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 16 and April 23, 2012
Ms. Deno presented the proposed special study session agenda for April 16, 2012, and the
proposed study session agenda for April 23, 2012.
Councilmember Mavity indicated that the City is doing a lot of tree planting now that may make
it difficult to put in sidewalks at a later date. She urged the City to make sure it is aligning its
park and recreation strategies with its sidewalk strategies.
2. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan (w/Commission)
Ms. Dreier presented the staff report and introduced Marney Olson, staff liaison for the Human
Rights Commission (HRC).
Ms. Olson introduced Brian Johnson, Chair of the HRC, and presented the HRC’s 2011 Annual
Report and 2012 Work Plan.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the bullying initiative and
coordination with schools and other community groups, as well as expected outcomes.
Mr. Johnson advised that one of the goals of the bullying project is to involve as many
community groups as possible, including religious organizations, businesses, and senior citizen
facilities, because the reach of bullying cannot be limited to just students. He stated that the
HRC felt that a focus on students was the best place to start and intends to focus the project on
students first and to branch out to other areas next.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
Ms. Olson stated the HRC is currently working with Sara Thompson at the School District and
participants in the project will include DPAC (District Parent Advisory Council) members and
representatives from the Police Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Ross asked if the project will include neighborhood bullying.
Mr. Johnson replied that this has not been discussed by the HRC but thought it was a great idea
and agreed that neighborhood bullying was an area that should be discussed.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the HRC’s use of the Diversity
Lens.
Ms. Olson indicated the Diversity Lens is handed out at community events such as National
Night Out or Children First events and is intended as a tool to get people engaged, to ask
questions, and to have a conversation with the HRC. She added that this year the HRC will have
anti-bullying bookmarks.
Councilmember Spano requested further information regarding the City’s work to reach out to its
immigrant populations. He asked if this outreach is part of the work of the HRC and urged the
City to do more to reach out to recent immigrant communities.
Ms. Dreier stated the City is currently working with the Police Advisory Commission on this
outreach and has developed a police academy program for new immigrants or non-English
speaking residents to provide education regarding municipal policing in the United States.
Mr. Johnson added the HRC has discussed reaching out to these groups and including
representatives from this community on various task forces.
Councilmember Hallfin expressed thanks to Mr. Johnson for serving on the Human Rights
Commission. He asked if the bullying project will include private schools.
Ms. Olson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Santa stated that several years ago the HRC, in conjunction with other groups,
hosted a forum for people of different ethnicities who recently moved to the United States to talk
about their customs and how those customs might be interpreted in this country. She felt it
would be worthwhile to consider revisiting this type of educational program again.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the HRC’s 2012 Work Plan is in alignment with the
expectations of the City Council.
3. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
(w/Commission)
Mr. Harcey presented the staff report and introduced Jim Smith, Chair of the Police Advisory
Commission.
Councilmember Ross noted that the issue of safety on the trails has been at the forefront in recent
Council discussions. She requested that the PAC work with Parks and Recreation staff to make
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
certain there is consistency in the City’s education of trail users and drivers regarding trail
crossings.
Mr. Luse advised the Police Department has police officers on bikes, particularly on the trails,
and the City partners with Three Rivers Park District. He stated that the information given to
trail users is based on the opinion of the City Attorney and the Police Department is consistent in
its message with respect to right-of-way on the trails. He indicated that difficulties arise because
consistency with trail signage throughout the metro area is lacking. He stated that drivers failing
to yield for trail users in crosswalks are ticketed if a clear violation is observed.
Council discussed the Beltline trail crossing and planned improvements to this area.
Councilmember Mavity stated she has asked staff to look at making the Beltline crossing a one
lane to increase safety in this area.
Councilmember Santa urged the City to continue its public service announcements on cable and
other media streams. She also requested further information regarding the domestic violence
awareness program.
Mr. Harcey indicated that staff is working on the public service announcements and added that
the previously filmed program related to safety on the trails will be aired soon. He advised that
the City partnered with Cornerstone and the Human Rights Commission on the Domestic
Violence Awareness project and presented several posters that have been distributed throughout
the City to increase awareness and provide contact information.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that several years ago, the PAC and HRC sponsored a joint
project where members of the Somali community were invited to talk about their impressions on
living in St. Louis Park, including how it was to be stopped by the police. She asked if the PAC
has considered hosting another event like this with immigrant groups.
Mr. Luse stated the Police Department has been working for over a year to gain acceptance into
the joint community police partnership which provides a liaison to the community for the
specific purpose of outreach to new populations. He added the City is hopeful it will be the next
city to gain entrance into this program.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the PAC’s 2012 Work Plan is in alignment with the
expectations of the City Council.
4. Housing Authority Annual Report and Work Plan (w/Commission)
Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report and introduced Catherine Courtney, Housing Authority
Chair, and Justin Kaufman, Susan Metzger, and Renee DuFour, Housing Authority Members.
Councilmember Ross stated she would like to see the City blend affordable housing across the
entire City and avoid concentrated areas of affordable housing. She added she did not want to
see only high end housing built around the light rail stations.
Ms. Courtney agreed with Councilmember Ross and stated the Housing Authority typically hears
about housing projects after they are well underway and the Housing Authority would like to
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
have some involvement in these projects before they are built to determine if there is an
opportunity to include affordable housing.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that the City should seek input from the Housing Authority when new
developments are being proposed.
Councilmember Mavity felt there were tools available that the City could use to create more
scattered site affordable housing units throughout the City, e.g., incentives that allowed a
developer to have an extra floor in its proposed development if affordable units were included.
She added the City could also relax some of its restrictions and/or provide more TIF for a project
if affordable housing units were included.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with the concept of de-concentrated housing but felt that the City
should first address its housing policy and address how much affordable housing is enough. She
indicated the City has a lot of affordable housing and provides funding for HIAs which is in
harmony with the City’s policy of favoring owner occupied housing.
Councilmember Santa agreed and stated those tools would provide affordable, owner occupied
housing scattered throughout the community, which should be the goal. She added she wanted
to see some balance between rental and ownership.
Councilmember Sanger stated that a policy consideration for Council will be to define balance.
She indicated the City has a number of vacant homes in foreclosure and urged the City to
implement a program to use these homes to augment its current programs. She felt this concept
would be worth exploring and could solve a neighborhood problem to benefit people who need
housing.
Ms. DuFour agreed this issue should be put on the Housing Authority’s agenda for discussion.
Ms. Schnitker advised that purchasing homes to operate as low income rentals could be costly.
She stated that the City has talked about another option in which rent subsidies would be
provided similar to the Section 8 voucher program and felt the City could serve many more
households by funding a rent subsidy rather than purchasing foreclosed houses
It was the consensus of the City Council that the Housing Authority’s 2012 Work Plan is in
alignment with the expectations of the City Council. It was also the consensus of the City
Council to direct staff to work with the Housing Authority on exploring strategies and tools to
include affordable housing units as a component of future housing projects as they come into the
City, including future housing projects in the light rail station areas.
5. Review of City’s Housing Goals
Staff presented the report and revised housing goals for Council consideration.
Councilmember Mavity stated that transit oriented development has been discussed as part of the
light rail station area planning meetings and bringing in workforce housing to these areas which
is part of the broader goal and vision of SWLRT. She referenced the second bullet under goal #5
which states affordable housing units should be disbursed throughout the City and not
concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development and felt that the words “or any
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
one development” should be deleted or modified because there may be times, based on business
reasons, that we may want some concentration.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Sanger, Santa, and Ross respectfully disagreed that these
words should be deleted.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that this clause be revised to state affordable housing units
should not be concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development absent
extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Locke noted it was important to recognize these are goals and are intended to provide
general direction for the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated it was important for Council to continue to think about the City’s
long term housing needs and to focus on rental or single family housing units that are big enough
for families with children and that serve to keep people living in St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Hallfin expressed support for new single family homes versus multi-family
housing and urged Council to consider single family homes as part of the redevelopment of the
Eliot School site.
Councilmember Santa requested that the housing goals address the issue of workforce housing.
She felt it was important to attract and keep younger people in the community so they can decide
where they want to buy a home.
Councilmember Spano stated he would like to see a specific bullet in the goals that mentions the
role that transit will play in the City’s housing decisions. He stated he would also like to see the
City expand its eligibility for the move-up housing program. He asked if the City has any type
of program that takes renters and moves them into housing before purchasing a home, similar to
a rent to own program. He added his sister participated in this type of program and agreed to
provide details of the program to staff.
Ms. Schnitker indicated the City participates in a first time homebuyers program and has
affordable home ownership programs. She added the City also financially supports the West
Hennepin Land Trust program.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to include workforce housing in the
housing goals. It was also the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to include a specific
bullet in the housing goals that describes the role of transit in the City’s housing decisions. It
was also the consensus of the City Council to revise the second bullet in housing goal #5 to add
“absent extraordinary circumstances or when in the best interest of the City.”
Ms. Deno advised that the next step will be to revise the housing goals and bring to Council for
formal adoption.
6. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and introduced Jeff Miller, consultant with HKGi.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
Mr. Miller presented the findings of the exterior lighting ordinance study and stated that the
critical issues identified in the study include the need to change the standard that prohibits a light
source from being visible off site, addressing spillover or glare, standards for recreational fields,
and it was found that the current measurement methods are confusing.
Councilmember Sanger requested clarification regarding recreational lighting versus other
outdoor lighting. She questioned why there is currently so much spillover recreational lighting
on adjacent properties.
Mr. Miller explained it is typical for recreational lighting to be treated differently because
lighting needs for spectators and participants is challenging and the amount of time that lighting
is used is limited compared to a parking lot or street light. He stated the lighting for different
types of sports needs to be different, must be aimed in different directions, and requires different
light levels. He indicated they are recommending that the City focus on shielding of lights and
aiming of lights in preparing an outdoor lighting ordinance.
Councilmember Santa stated that lighted recreational facilities in the City have spillover issues
and the City appears to be the biggest offender. She reminded Council that it needs to think
about how it is going to apply these standards to its own facilities and not just Benilde-St.
Margaret’s.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that the City previously approved the plan by
Benilde-St. Margaret’s to build an athletic field and Benilde-St. Margaret’s was aware of the
City’s Ordinance requirements and has failed to comply. She stated the City has received
complaints and the City has not forced Benilde-St. Margaret’s to resolve the problem. She
requested that any outdoor lighting ordinance include a requirement to eliminate glare.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated Councilmember Sanger’s frustration but it is not
possible to meet the City’s current ordinance and it needs to be amended. She added that light
pollution is part of life in an urban setting and to require the elimination of all glare is not
reasonable.
Councilmember Hallfin suggested that the hours of operation be expanded to allow operation of
lights whenever games are being played because it is sometimes dark before 4:00 p.m. and lights
are needed for games. He requested that staff look at the best practice for this requirement.
Councilmember Spano requested that the ordinance include a requirement for natural buffers,
e.g., trees, around lighting sources. He stated that when Methodist expanded its facility,
plantings were used as light shields and the trees have done a great job of shielding the
neighboring properties from the lights on the sides of the building.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the setback requirements be reviewed to require lighting
be installed a minimum number of feet from adjacent residential property lines. She also asked
if height restrictions on lights could be added.
Ms. Deno agreed that staff would look at best practices in other models for residential property
setbacks and height restrictions.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to develop specific outdoor lighting
ordinance provisions with the Planning Commission and prepare an updated ordinance for
Council review in study session.
7. Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report.
Ms. Deno requested further feedback from Council on what it means to be No. 1 or a leader in
the industry.
Councilmember Spano indicated that Exhibit 3 does a great job of demonstrating why the City is
not #1 compared to neighboring communities and stated it was surprising to see that the City
does not take #3-7 plastics. He stated if the City added plastics #1-5 plus #7 bottles, the City
could be #1 in recycling.
Councilmember Sanger agreed and urged the City to find ways to incent more recycling and less
trash, such as having smaller trash carts at a reduced price and charging more for people using
larger and more trash carts. She urged the City to require any haulers responding to an RFP for
recycling to give the City data on how much material intended for recycling actually gets thrown
into the landfill. She also urged the City to consider what it can do to limit the number of plastic
bags and plastic water bottles sold in the City and to require businesses that use Styrofoam to
agree to recycle it. She added the City needs to be a model for recycling and should have
recycling in its parks.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that the range of items collected for recycling should be
expanded to the extent possible and that recycling opportunities should be provided for multi-
family housing. She indicated she was shocked to see how much of the recycling streams do not
get recycled and felt that the City has the ability to increase that accountability level.
Councilmember Hallfin requested that staff reach out to the School Board to see if there is a way
for the City to help the School District start recycling.
Councilmember Santa stated she would like to see 100% of the City’s residents have an
opportunity to recycle.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would also like to see the City’s businesses recycle. He added he would
like to make recycling as convenient and as easy as possible for everyone.
Councilmember Ross did not think it was feasible for the City to start legislating what stores can
sell or use, e.g., no plastic bags, no plastic water bottles. She questioned who would be
responsible for the enforcement of measuring trash and recyclables and the cost to the City. She
stated that some residents are unable to recycle and urged Council to be realistic in its goals. She
added that drop-off locations for recycling of batteries and CFL bulbs should be as easy and
convenient as possible for residents.
Council discussed single sort and dual sort recycling.
Mr. Rardin noted that the industry may be trending toward a single sort system of recycling. He
stated that a dual sort system provides purer recyclable material while a single sort system results
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 9, 2012
in more contamination but higher volumes of recyclable material. He indicated there is a trade-
off for having less volume and higher quality recyclables versus higher volume and lower quality
recyclables. He stated that staff will prepare a list of materials that will be collected curbside for
Council review; in addition, staff will propose Pay As You Throw (PAYT) rates that provide
economic incentives for increasing recycling and cutting down on waste generation.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the City should continue to work to broaden and
increase its recycling numbers; single sort and dual sort recycling collection should both be
allowed for consideration during the future contract collection process. It was also the consensus
of the City Council to use locally based existing drop-off facilities for recycling and to continue
to educate residents about these facilities. It was also the consensus of the City Council to strive
for greater accountability with respect to recycling and to expand the City’s program to include
recycling of plastics and organic materials, including CFL bulbs and batteries.
8. Communications/Meeting Check-In
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding the Westwood Villa HIA
improvements, specifically the replacement of bathroom vents. She also expressed concern
about the average assessment of $33,000.
Ms. Deno explained that anytime a roof is replaced, all vents need to be replaced at the same
time. She stated that when an HIA is proposed, the City Assessor will review the project to
make sure the improvements will hold up in the City’s housing market. She agreed to provide
further information regarding the improvements to Council.
Councilmember Sanger expressed support for the City’s use of HIAs but was uncomfortable
with the amount of money that the Westwood Villa residents will be required to pay and the
relative ratio of the cost of improvements compared to the low property value. She expressed
concern that residents would be unable to afford their dues to continue ongoing maintenance at
Westwood Villa. She requested that Council have an overall policy discussion about HIAs and
whether there should be some kind of cap on the size of payments compared to the value of the
housing units.
Councilmember Hallfin requested that Council revisit the Eliot School site and possible use of
the site.
Councilmember Ross noted that the neighbors were clear about wanting a mixed use in that area.
Ms. Deno agreed to provide Council with a written report regarding the Eliot School site.
The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
9. Westwood Villa HIA
10. Open to Business Update and Contract Renewal
11. Outstanding Citizen Awards Task Force
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 16, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin (arrived at 6:32 p.m.),
Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling),
Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Senior Planner (Mr.
Walther), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and proposed Community sidewalk classifications as well
as the proposed future sidewalk, trail, and bikeway system depicted on several exhibits.
Councilmember Santa expressed concern with sidewalks leading nowhere and liked the idea of
connecting the City’s sidewalks. She noted that public sentiment may have changed since the
original sidewalk plan was introduced several years ago and the City may need to capitalize on
that.
Mr. Harmening indicated this master plan came out of the Vision work in 2006 and has been
adopted into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He stated Council has indicated it wants to
implement further improvements to the City’s sidewalks and trails system and staff is trying to
get to a point where Council is comfortable with a concept so questions can be answered and
priorities established, as well as having discussions about how to pay for it and undertaking a
public process. He suggested that Council make a list of proposed sidewalk or trail segments
that it is uncomfortable with and staff will come back to Council for further discussion.
Councilmember Santa felt that all of the sidewalks are needed but noted that residents were not
happy about the segment on 33rd between Texas Avenue and Louisiana Oaks Park, as well as the
segment on 31st Street.
Councilmember Ross indicated that she would like to see the segment on Flag Avenue go in but
there will likely be some pushback from residents.
Councilmember Mavity explained that she requested the City consider using creative or new
technologies related to sidewalks to mitigate the negative impacts of putting in sidewalks. She
suggested that the definition of Community sidewalk be amended as it relates to activity nodes
so that these segments are addressed on a case by case basis. She stated that not every street
around a particular activity node will require a sidewalk because of a lack of traffic while other
areas such as 39th and 40th between Joppa and the area leading to Minikahda Vista and Susan
Lindgren are more heavily trafficked. She asked that this be considered for some of the more
high traffic areas around parks and schools.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of April 16, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the difference between Community and Neighborhood sidewalks
is nebulous and felt that the volume of pedestrian and vehicle traffic was critical to
differentiating between the two. She stated Council needs greater clarity on that and suggested
creating a threshold for how the City measures pedestrian and vehicle traffic. She added this
would help residents understand why a sidewalk is classified a Community sidewalk or a
Neighborhood sidewalk.
Councilmember Mavity suggested that the first goal of developing an interconnected network of
pedestrian and bicycle routes be revised to state “… establish a citywide grid-system of
sidewalks approximately every ¼ mile.” She also stated the goals could include a statement
about completing sidewalk segments that are not contiguous.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the goals should put more emphasis on adding sidewalks in areas
with high traffic volumes whether or not the sidewalks are located every ¼ mile.
Councilmember Ross agreed and noted there are going to be some decisions made that will not
be popular with all residents but safety should be the first priority.
Councilmember Mavity requested clarification regarding the bridges that would be part of a
future system and how they fit into the timing of this plan.
Mr. Rardin stated that as trails are built along a particular segment, e.g., Minnehaha Creek west
of Methodist, it is intended that the bridge will be built in conjunction with that segment. He
noted that this will be part of a future discussion with Council as part of the CIP.
Councilmember Sanger stated this leads to the larger question of creating more north-south
connections for vehicles and asked if the plan for sidewalks and trails coordinates with a plan for
future north-south connections, e.g., a new north-south connection west of Highway 100.
Mr. Rardin stated that the City Engineer has started a process to look at traffic connections
through the area around Highway 100 and agreed it would be easier to put a sidewalk and trail
segment in at the same time.
Mr. Harmening stated all of the plans will need to merge at some point and to the extent that the
City does not yet have clear answers on road extensions, certain sidewalk and trail plan specifics
may not be available until that is figured out. He stated that once Council is comfortable with
the concept plan, next steps include talking about specific priorities and financing, followed by
the public input process. He requested that Council further review the plan and forward
comments or concerns regarding those segments that should not be included in the plan. He
requested that these comments be submitted to him or Mr. Rardin by the end of the week.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that Council should also discuss the principles to be applied in
order to prioritize the plan.
The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 16, 2012
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia
Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Public
Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Parks & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Environmental Coordinator
(Mr. Vaughan), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Housing Supervisor (Ms.
Schnitker), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Planner (Mr. Fulton), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Retirement Recognition for Craig Panning, Parks and Recreation Manager of
Buildings and Structures
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recited the resolution recognizing the contributions of Craig
Panning and presented a plaque to Mr. Panning for 37 years of service to the City.
Mr. Harmening stated that Mr. Panning has been an outstanding employee and a
wonderful steward of the City’s Rec Center. He congratulated Mr. Panning on his
retirement and expressed the City’s thanks for his years of service.
2b. Caring Youth Day Proclamation
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recited the Caring Youth Day proclamation and presented the
proclamation to Mr. Bob Ramsey.
2c. Recognition of Donation from Cargill and the St. Louis Park Lions Club for
Tree Planting
Mr. Vaughan stated the Reforest St. Louis Park program is a partnership with the Tree
Trust with a goal to reforest St. Louis Park in the advent of invasive species. He stated
that Cargill has donated $6,000 to the Tree Trust and St. Louis Park Lions Club has
donated $250 to the Tree Trust, which will be used to plant 80 trees in Oak Hill and
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
Wolfe Parks. He expressed the City’s thanks to Cargill and St. Louis Park Lions Club for
their generous donations.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed the City Council’s thanks to Cargill and St. Louis Park
Lions Club for helping with the City’s reforest efforts.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes March 26, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that a sentence be added to the fifth full paragraph on
page 5 that states “She stated the City failed to inform drivers that they had to stop when
a trail user was already in the roadway.” She also requested that the first sentence of the
seventh full paragraph on page 5 be revised to state “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.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that a sentence be added to the fourth full paragraph on
page 4 that states “She stated she would not have originally voted to support this project
if she had known it was going to be changed in this manner and would support the
proposed project reluctantly because the project has been half done for such a long time.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-061 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 March 14, 2012.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
Councilmember Hallfin requested that Consent Calendar item 4b be removed and placed
on the regular agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item 4b to the regular agenda as item 8c; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Westwood Villa Condominium Association’s Housing Improvement Area
(HIA)
Ms. Larsen presented the staff report and explained that Westwood Villa Condominium
Association petitioned the City to establish an HIA for site improvements financed with a
loan from the City. She stated that Council received a written report regarding the
proposal on April 9, 2012, and requested additional information related to the need for
improvements and the associated cost. She advised the Association has been working for
several years on how to pay for the improvements and the loan is intended to pay for
required elevator updates, replacement of the roof and mansard siding, and replacement
of the heating and cooling system. She indicated the estimated cost of improvements
represents a conservatively high estimate and the average cost per unit is $33,000 which,
financed on a 20 year term, would equal $2,900 annually or $242 monthly. She noted
when the actual construction bids come in, the project consultant expects to reduce the
contingency costs for a savings of approximately $150,000 or an average $2,000 per unit.
She stated Council also requested further information regarding the payment impact and
stated the Association has limited options for financing the improvements and the Board
believes a large special assessment would put the Association at greater financial risk
than the more affordable HIA fee. She noted the City provides hardship deferrals and
some owners have indicated they will apply for this deferral. She stated Council also
expressed some concern regarding trust issues with the property management firm and
explained the Board contracted with a new management firm, Multiventures Properties
Inc. as of April 1, 2012, and also used a reserve adviser and AMBE Ltd. to prepare a
scope of work and oversee the construction. She indicated that firewalls to reduce the
City’s financial risk are included in the staff report and added when units are sold the
HIA fees are treated the same as a special assessment.
Councilmember Ross asked if interest is built into the HIA fee.
Ms. Larsen replied that interest has not been calculated into the estimated $33,000 HIA
fee and the interest rate is estimated to be 5.5%.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
Ms. Michelle Arulfo, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #310, appeared before the City
Council and stated she is the Vice President of the Westwood Villa Board. She explained
the Board started this process in 2009 and has determined that the HIA is the best option.
She introduced Board members Susanna Presseller, JoAnn Schutz, Barb Skrivanek and
Rick Grabovsky from AMBE Ltd. She stated that if there was any way to do the
improvements one at a time, they would not need this loan. She explained that the flat
roof is at a point where they have catastrophic problems including leaks. She indicated
the flat roof is attached to the mansard and was not attached properly, resulting in water
getting between them and there are animals living in the mansard roof. She stated the
deck system’s base beams are rotted and structural engineers have indicated the decks are
structurally unsafe. She stated the chiller system is 40 years old and requires mold
removal. She stated they have received correction notices regarding the bathroom vents
because approximately two-thirds of the vents are not working and the building does not
have proper ventilation. She indicated it is important for all the contractors to work
together and to make sure the improvements are done correctly the first time. She noted
the elevator does not meet State Code and is a first priority for repair. She acknowledged
that the improvements are expensive and some homeowners will have difficulty paying
an extra $250 per month; however, if they do not get the HIA loan, they will be required
to do a special assessment, which will result in a higher monthly cost. She then presented
several photographs of the building.
Councilmember Ross asked how much property owners pay for homeowner’s association
fees.
Ms. Arulfo replied the average homeowner’s association fee is $320 per month.
Ms. JoAnn Schutz, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #113, appeared before the City Council
and expressed support for the HIA. She stated they need to have this loan and thanked
the City Council for the opportunity to make this loan available to them and added
without the HIA loan, it would be a much greater hardship for their residents.
Ms. Cindy Anderson, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #311, appeared before the City
Council and stated she had water leaking through her patio door over the weekend and
was concerned that it will happen again. She expressed concern about the condition of
the roof and the building’s air conditioning. She expressed support for the loan and
added it will be a hardship for her but is willing to get a part time job to cover the loan.
Mr. Thad Radel, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #114, appeared before the City Council
and expressed support for the loan. He felt the HIA loan was the most affordable way to
get the repairs done. He thanked Ms. Larsen for her help in answering all their questions
and looks forward to working with her and the rest of City staff.
Ms. Susanna Presseller, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #121, appeared before the City
Council and thanked Council for considering the HIA loan. She expressed support for
the loan and recognized that it will be a hardship but without the improvements, the
building will continue to significantly deteriorate and their property values will plummet.
Ms. Gretchen Mellieus, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #110, appeared before the City
Council and stated she was against the loan. She stated she appreciated all the work done
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
by the Board. She stated she cannot explain the hardship the increased monthly fee will
put on owners on top of the high homeowner’s association fees. She indicated that a 20
year assessment will make it impossible to sell and she stated she has been trying to sell
for five years. She stated this will extend her ownership unless she is forced into
foreclosure. She recommended that the Board take more time to prioritize the list of
projects. She felt that a special assessment might be easier to manage because it is a short
term fee rather than the 20 year assessment being proposed.
Mr. Alexander Nemets, representative of Vladlen Nemets, 2200 Nevada Avenue South,
#218, appeared before the City Council and stated they oppose the loan. He agreed that
the improvements were necessary but an additional $250 per month for his parents would
be terrible. He asked for further consideration of the improvements to see if it was
possible to decrease the price of repairs.
Mr. Demetri Stulman appeared before the City Council and stated he owns two units and
expressed support for the HIA loan. He indicated this process has been ongoing for three
years and the cost is only going to get more expensive if they consistently put off
addressing the problems. He felt if they let it go any further, there will be no worth to the
building. He stated he had faith that the properties will be worth what they were before if
these improvements are made and the improvements cannot be delayed any further.
Ms. Harriet Halverson, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #202, appeared before the City
Council and stated she has lived there for 36 years and has slowly watched the project go
to ruin. She stated she was willing to make her contribution so they can go back to where
they used to be and be proud of their address.
Ms. Millie Osman, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
stated she was against the HIA loan. She felt that this process has been handled terribly
and residents have had no input. She stated they have had two meetings with 30 minutes
allowed for questions at each meeting and the rest of the meeting was private. She
indicated they have no idea what the improvements will look like or what kind of
materials will be used. She stated the Board voted yes for the caretaker unit and said it
would have been nice if homeowners had been informed of this. She said the ratio of the
cost of work to the buildings value is too high.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Ross stated she lives at Greensboro and they are going through the HIA
process now. She stated it was important to keep the City’s housing stock maintained.
She stated there are always costs associated with maintaining your home but was
reluctant to approve this because it represents a large amount of money for 66
homeowners to absorb. She acknowledged the improvements are needed but still had
some questions regarding the project and was not comfortable with moving forward. She
stated she would like to see a lower dollar amount for the improvements. She requested
further information regarding the bidding process as well as the Board’s input from
homeowners. She stated she would also like to hear more about the potential risks to the
City in terms of repayment for those residents electing the hardship deferral and for those
in foreclosure. She also requested information regarding the final vote of homeowners.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
She indicated she does not want to be quick to vote on this and would like to defer action
until May 7 to allow time to talk to the homeowners and City staff.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross to table action on 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 the Second Reading for
May 7, 2012.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that the questions raised by Councilmember Ross could be
addressed tonight.
Ms. Larsen explained the HIA vote is taken by owners signing petitions, and that 38
residents signed petitions in support of the HIA, or 58% approval for the HIA. She noted
the association-owned unit was not included in the final count of 38.
Ms. Larsen stated that the city does provide a hardship deferral for low-income seniors
and disabled person. The city provided a questionnaire asking residents if they were
considering applying for the hardship deferral or whether residents would be paying for
the HIA up front. Five owners indicated they would be eligible for the hardship deferral.
When the deferred unit is sold, the owner pays their fee with interest. She noted that the
HIA loan is 105% of the project costs, which covers delinquent and deferred fees. She
stated that the City’s risk is low, and the City has not previously had an HIA where the
City did not receive payment.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Grabovsky, AMBE Ltd., 7201 Ohms Lane, Edina, appeared before the City
Council and stated they were hired two years ago to perform an assessment of the
building and prepare a report to the previous management and board, which identified the
major problems. He stated that specs were prepared and sent out for bid, with five
contractors bidding on the project. He explained the ongoing repairs to the roof and
stated the roof is well past its life expectancy and needs to be replaced. He added that
residents living on the third floor run a high risk of having moisture infiltration. He
stated the new roof comes with a 15 year total system warranty and a five year contractor
warranty. He indicated the cost for putting in new deck posts was competitively bid by
five contractors with an approximate $100,000 span between the bids. He did not feel
there was anything that could be done to lower the cost particularly since public safety is
critical and codes must be met. He stated the mansard cannot be scraped down and
painted and they intend to save as many of the structural members as possible and install
new material with a longer life and less upkeep. He noted the bids were done two years
ago and they are working to keep prices in line, but a lot of materials going into the
building are oil based which adds to the cost. He stated they are specifying good quality
material to keep the building watertight and safe and the Board is very concerned about
the numbers.
Councilmember Spano asked what would happen if this loan is not approved.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
Ms. Larsen stated that from the City’s perspective, the Inspections Department has
written correction notices for the venting system, which must be brought up to Code. She
indicated the Association would have to find another way to finance the improvements,
which could require a special assessment at a much larger amount and shorter term.
Councilmember Spano asked what mechanisms are in place to ensure maintenance is not
deferred in the future.
Ms. Arulfo replied that the reserve study done in 2008 will be redone if the HIA loan is
approved and a plan will be implemented for the next 20 years with homeowner’s
association dues reflecting that change.
Ms. Larsen noted that the Development Agreement will require the Association to update
its reserve study and ensure that future dues are adequate to maintain reserves and fund
future maintenance.
Councilmember Ross stated she was uncomfortable with the project costs and was
concerned that some residents feel the process has not been as transparent as it should be.
She indicated that since this is the first reading, Council will have time before the second
reading to address resident concerns and have further conversations with residents, the
Board, and the Board’s consultant.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, 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 the Second Reading for May 7, 2012.
Ms. Arulfo stated the Board recognizes the high cost for 66 homeowners and the Board is
committed to lowering the cost as much as possible. She indicated they will reduce the
contingency to 20% and as bids come back, the Board would like to lower the
contingency to 15% if possible.
Councilmember Ross encouraged the Board to seek local bids if possible because buying
local can result in cheaper costs.
Ms. Arulfo stated the Board held four information sessions with residents. She added the
Board also holds quarterly meetings where the Board has shared information and held
forums at each for a total of 12 forums. She advised they cannot select materials until the
bids come back and they will be forming committees to get homeowner involvement in
these decisions.
Ms. Mellieus stated the process has been confusing and indicated a letter sent by the
Association to homeowners with the petition and survey was unclear. The survey asked
if owners intended to pay off the amount early or if they qualified for the hardship
deferral. She stated it was not clear in the petition language that if a resident returned the
petition in any way, shape, or form that you were voting for it. She asked the City to
amend its petition voting process to make it much clearer so residents know what they are
signing and to require residents to clearly state “yes” or “no” to the loan. She added it
appeared that the letter was taking a random survey on whether residents would elect
deferral or pay off the loan early.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
Ms. Larsen agreed that the process can be confusing and stated that the City is required to
follow State law. She indicated that the EDA Attorney prepares the petitions to meet
statutory requirements.
Councilmember Ross urged the City to work with counsel on revising the petition
process to add language making it clear that residents are voting either yes or no to the
proposed HIA.
Ms. Larsen noted that the City conveys to residents, in writing and verbally, that signing
the petition is considered a yes vote and not signing is a no vote. Regarding the
confusion of the Association’s letter and city petition and questionnaire, she added that
staff contacted residents where there were questions or if staff felt residents were
confused about what they were signing. She noted that there is a 45-day veto period
following adoption of the ordinance.
Ms. Barbara Skrivanek, 2200 Nevada Avenue South, #207, appeared before the City
Council and stated that many of the improvements have to be done soon and they need
the HIA loan because they need the money up front. She stated a special assessment will
require residents to come up with a large sum of money in a few months and the impact
of this would be much greater than the proposed $250 per month for the HIA.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger reclosed the public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity stated she understood the gravity of this situation and
appreciated the burden this will place on many residents. She indicated St. Louis Park
prides itself on having quality housing and felt these improvements must be done and the
HIA represents the least painful way of completing the improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she would reluctantly support this not because of need,
which has been laid out clearly, but because of the amount that residents are being asked
to pay and the burden to residents. She also expressed concern that the amount of the
loan is a high percentage of the overall value of the entire property. She requested that
Council have a future study session discussion about HIA parameters of projects going
forward and whether there should be limitations or caps on the program.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Ellipse II on Excelsior (e2) Major Amendment
Resolution No. 12-062
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and stated the proposed changes to the 58-unit
apartment development include adding a total of three bedrooms for a total of 65
bedrooms, increasing the 5th level floor area, moving and expanding the rooftop patio
area, increasing the green space, adding one tandem parking stall, and adding
landscaping. He stated the reduced building footprint allows additional green space with
a reduced Ground Floor Area Ratio of 0.29. He explained the roof plan encloses the
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 9
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
previous patio location and moves and expands the rooftop patio increasing DORA to
12.8%. He stated the landscape plan has been increased to provide 54 trees, 232 shrubs,
and 539 perennials. He advised that 109 parking stalls are provided including 22 stalls
designated for commercial use. He indicated that by filling in the northwest corner, the
building’s height and shadow cast onto the neighboring apartment has increased. He
explained the Ordinance requirements and stated in this case, the previous development
had zero days over the daily limit in a year and the maximum allowed is 60 days. He
stated the proposed development would have 34 days where there is a shadow that
exceeds the daily limit, but it would still meet the yearly limit. He added that a
neighborhood meeting was held and four people attended with no major concerns
expressed at that meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 12-062 Amending and Restating Resolution No. 12-008 and Approving a
Major Amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard
for Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”).
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
8b. Business Park Zoning District
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and explained the intent of this zoning district is to
adhere to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated this district increases the number of jobs
per acre, maintains the business/employment character of the Business Park areas, and
allows for redevelopment in accordance with current market trends for office and related
business activities. He stated one of the goals of the Ordinance is to be efficient with
land use and encourage integration between land uses in the area, and advised that two
major areas guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Business Parks include the Beltline
Boulevard area and Highway 7 and Louisiana. He stated staff will begin the process of
rezoning these areas to be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan following the
second reading. He stated the Ordinance allows three new uses including research and
development, light assembly, and low impact manufacturing and processing and these
uses would be allowed with a CUP.
Councilmember Spano asked if the City is targeting the types of businesses represented
by the new land use categories.
Mr. Fulton explained that these types of uses more accurately reflect where the market is
going and staff has been working with the Economic Development staff on ordinance
development to insure it incorporates appropriate uses and market trends.
Councilmember Spano stated that the two areas planned for rezoning are slated for light
rail stations and asked how much of the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan included
involvement by Met Council and the light rail planning groups.
Ms. McMonigal advised the Met Council reviews the Comprehensive Plan for content
and the Met Council is not as concerned with local land uses. She stated the Business
Park Zoning District represents a mixed use development area, meeting the market trend
that is moving away from strictly industrial to more industrial/office with some ancillary
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 10
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
service and retail uses allowed. She noted that additional overlays may be applied in
some LRT station areas and the City will likely make additional changes in zoning to
accommodate transit oriented development.
Mr. Fulton stated that staff has kept the potential for light rail in the forefront and the
Ordinance was written with the expectation that this Zoning District could be applied
throughout the City and not just in the areas around the light rail stations.
Councilmember Mavity asked what kind of buffering is in place for these types of uses
adjacent to single family housing areas and referenced the Oak Hill neighborhood.
Mr. Fulton stated it was important to remember these areas were previously guided for
industrial use. He indicated the Business Park Zoning District has been tailored to
provide greater restrictions for setbacks and other performance standards to protect the
adjacent single family residential area.
Councilmember Santa asked if the shadow study requirements also apply in the Business
Park Zoning District.
Mr. Fulton replied in the affirmative.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to Adopt
First Reading of 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 and to set the Second Reading for May 7, 2012.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the definition of research and development in
Section 36-142(e) include a statement that this use does not result in noxious or offensive
odors, sounds, vibrations, emissions, smoke or external nuisances upon adjacent
properties. She felt it was essential to have this statement in the definition to prevent any
external adverse impact on the neighbors. She also requested that staff consider adding
language that requires sidewalks in these areas.
Councilmember Ross agreed with the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Mavity seconded the friendly amendment.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
8c. Approve the 2012 Neighborhood Grants
Councilmember Hallfin stated he requested removal of this item from the Consent
Calendar in order to point out to residents the importance of grants that the City provides
to the neighborhood associations. He encouraged neighborhoods that are not currently
organized to contact Marney Olson who can help organize the neighborhoods and assist
with grant applications.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the 2012 Neighborhood Grants.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 11
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
9. Communications
Councilmember Spano reminded residents that tomorrow is the deadline for filing taxes.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the home remodeling tour is Sunday, May 6th, and further
information is available on the City’s website.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that a benefit will be held for Officer Pollitz’s family on
Saturday, April 28th, at Toby Keith’s.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 23, 2012
The meeting convened at 6:40 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: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), City Attorney (Mr. Knutson), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Joe Mansky (Ramsey County Election Manager).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning –May 7 and May 14, 2012
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for May 7, 2012, and the
proposed study session agenda for May 14, 2012.
2. Ranked Choice Voting
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and introduced Joe Mansky, Ramsey County Election
Manager. She stated that the City has held seven primary elections since 1975 and two primary
elections were won with less than 50% of the vote. She indicated the current state certified
voting equipment does not count ranked votes and would not notify voters of errors with RCV.
Mr. Mansky stated that the website www.rcelections.org contains useful information regarding
RCV. He discussed several myths regarding RCV and stated the RCV system does not
guarantee a majority winner and indicated the more candidates that are on a ballot will reduce the
likelihood of a majority winner. He stated they have found that voters do not want to rank their
choice and typically want to vote for only one candidate. He indicated that another myth is that
people will not understand RCV and stated that St. Paul’s experience has been that the voters
knew what they were doing and they received no complaints from voters. He stated their public
information campaign included a mailing to every resident as well as website videos and
advertising on Metro Transit buses, with the goal of directing voters to the website to learn about
RCV. He advised that it cannot be proven that RCV will save money and stated that they did not
spend money on the primary election but the public information campaign overwhelmed those
savings and that this did not include the many hours of additional staff time needed to develop,
educate, communicate and run this process. He stated that after the voters approved the Charter
amendment for RCV in 2009, they spent over a year implementing the RCV system in order to
enact the ordinance and prepare for the 2011 St. Paul RCV Election. He also discussed the
reallocation process required for candidates who do not receive 50%+1 of votes cast and the
process used to hand count ballots. He noted there is currently no RCV equipment available that
is certified for use by the Secretary of State but there are products currently in development that
will deliver data that can be used to perform reallocations.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 23, 2012
Ms. Deno stated that if the issue is to hold or not hold a primary, it is the City Charter that
currently requires that primary elections be held. If the Council wished elimination of primary to
be explored they could ask Charter Commission to consider whether primary elections should
continue.
Councilmember Sanger expressed thanks for the educational information contained in the staff
report. She stated she had requested that Council consider RCV but is now convinced that RCV
is not administratively practical at this time.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed that RCV should not be pursued at this time and felt the current
method used for voting did not need to be changed.
Councilmember Spano stated that advocates of RCV will argue that it changes the way
candidates run their campaigns and that it encourages more people to run. He agreed that from a
financial standpoint, RCV does not make sense for the City.
Mr. Mansky stated they did not see an increase in voter turnout as a result of RCV. He indicated
that some advocates of RCV feel that it is beneficial to minority candidates and voters but that
was not their experience.
It was the consensus of the City Council that it does not wish to further pursue the method of a
Ranked Voting Election for the St. Louis Park municipal elections.
Councilmember Mavity stated that voter turnout for the City’s primary elections is very low
compared to the high cost of running the primary elections. She suggested having the Charter
Commission look into this and come back to Council with a recommendation on whether to
eliminate primary elections. The Council stated they may want to have more discussion on this
before considering sending this to Charter Commission for review.
3. Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
Councilmember Santa stated that the City is interested in helping Toby Keith’s come off
probationary status but did not feel that on-site gambling would help and could even be a
distraction.
Councilmember Sanger requested the City Attorney’s opinion as to whether Council can deny
the gambling premises permit application from Hopkins Raspberry Festival at this time.
Mr. Knutson replied that Council has legal standing to deny the gambling premises permit
application from Hopkins Raspberry Festival at this time.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to deny the application at this time and to indicate
to Toby Keith’s that if and when they come into compliance with the City’s liquor ordinance, the
City is willing to entertain the gambling premises permit application at that time. She added that
her rationale is that gambling and alcohol go together and the on-site gambling could contribute
to a further disparity in not enough food sales for Toby Keith’s.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 23, 2012
Mr. Knutson stated that the resolution denying issuance of a permit states that Toby Keith’s can
reapply after the establishment comes off probation. He added that the legal basis for turning
down the premises permit does not come with a guarantee that the permit will be approved when
Toby Keith’s is no longer on probation.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Council can require Toby Keith’s to remain in compliance with
City Code for a specified number of months before Council will entertain further applications for
a premises permit for lawful gambling.
Mr. Knutson stated that a condition can be added requiring Toby Keith’s to remain in
compliance for a specified number of months before reapplying for a premises permit. He noted
that premises permits for lawful gambling are not annually renewed by the City and if Toby
Keith’s were to go back on probation, a condition of probation could be a requirement to get rid
of gambling at Toby Keith’s.
Councilmember Ross stated she was not in favor of denying the premises permit. She indicated
if Toby Keith’s feels they can take this on, it is their responsibility and they are fully aware of the
cost of doing business in the City. She added if Toby Keith’s loses their liquor license it will
take care of the gambling.
It was the consensus of the City Council place this item on the agenda for May 7, 2012.
4. City Council Electronic Communications
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
Mr. Knutson recited several provisions of the Open Meeting Law. He referenced a recent
situation with the Metro Gang Task Force where the executive director asked task force members
if it was okay to send out a press release and all task force members agreed the press release
could be sent, resulting in a violation of the Open Meeting Law. He discussed serial
communications using email as well as the implications of social media and urged Council to be
cautious.
Ms. Deno stated that one of the City’s biggest potential concern could be emails going back and
forth among Council and a concern that emails could result in a decision being made in violation
of the Open Meeting Law.
Mayor Jacobs reminded Council not to use “reply to all” when responding to emails.
Mr. Harmening stated that he sends an end of week email to Council regarding ongoing issues
and to provide Council with a heads-up on various issues.
Mr. Knutson advised that it is alright to send this type of email as long as no decision is being
made.
Council discussed notice requirements and closed meetings.
Mr. Harmening presented a policy adopted by the City of Woodbury regarding electronic
communications and noted the City does not have a policy regarding electronic communications.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 23, 2012
It was the consensus of the City Council that it was not interested in formally adopting an
electronic communications policy at this time.
5. Boards and Commissions Policies
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the language be revised to state that the City Council will
not appoint more than one board or commission member to serve concurrently on more than one
board or commission. She stated since the Charter Commission is not appointed by Council they
would not be subject to this. She also suggested that the definition of immediate family include a
reference to stepparents and stepchildren and members of the same household.
Councilmember Ross stated she would like to see an exception for youth appointments to allow
youth members to serve on the same board as another family member.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council makes appointments to the Housing Authority and
suggested that the Housing Authority be added to the list of boards and commissions governed
by the rules and procedures.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the language indicate “such other boards and
commissions that may be created or that the council appoints.”
Councilmember Ross requested that the list include CEAC.
It was the consensus of the City Council to adopt a revised policy for boards and commissions,
including the revisions suggested, and to approve the policy via consent agenda.
6. Environment/Sustainability Input
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and proposed outline for establishing the environment/
sustainability task force. She explained the purpose of the task force, timeline for meeting, and
guiding principles.
Councilmember Sanger felt that five meetings may not be enough and the timeline may be too
short. She suggested that the guiding principles provide more flexibility to allow more if
necessary and to allow the task force to decide if they need more time to complete their work.
Ms. Deno agreed to revise the timeline for completing the task force’s work.
Mr. Harmening suggested that the City advertise the task force formation and ask interested
residents to complete an application and then Council can review the applications to make
appointments to the task force.
Councilmember Santa stated it will be important to have a balanced membership with
representation from all areas of the City as well as certain geographic anomalies, e.g., residents
living near Minnehaha Creek.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 23, 2012
Councilmember Mavity requested that the application form include applicants to list their top
three to five environmental issues, ideas or areas of interest.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the application form ask applicants to give an indication
of what environmental areas they have been involved with in the past.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council has previously discussed having some kind of
mechanism on the City’s website to provide a forum for residents to provide input and share
information on environmental issues. She indicated this information could be helpful to the task
force in understanding what residents are interested in related to environmental issues. Council
discussed this and thought it best of the task force wanted to do something like this, they could
make such recommendation to Council.
Councilmember Spano stated he does not want Council to shape the work of the task force too
much and added it will be important to make sure the task force represents a broad spectrum of
issues related to the environment.
7. Communications/Meeting Check-In
Mr. Harmening advised that TCF Bank will be holding its annual meeting at the Marriott Hotel
on Wednesday, April 25th, with Jeb Bush as the keynote speaker and there may be some protests
taking place during the annual meeting. He reminded Council of the Children First event on
Wednesday morning at 7:15 a.m. and asked Council to let him know if they wish to attend the
event.
Mr. Harmening requested input from Council regarding a request received from the Beyond the
Yellow Ribbon program and whether the City wants to support the program.
Councilmember Spano advised that he chairs the yellow ribbon steering committee at the City of
St. Paul and stated that Beyond the Yellow Ribbon is a network of individuals and organizations
dedicated to supporting the country’s servicemembers and their families. He indicated this
program spans a variety of areas and can be as big or as little as the City wants. He added that
Minnetonka, Golden Valley, and Hopkins are looking at joining the program. He stated he
would do whatever he could to facilitate the City’s participation in the program.
Councilmember Sanger stated a policy question for Council to consider is how the City decides
which nonprofits to help.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the City would be helping to facilitate a partnership in the
community made up of a variety of groups, including the Rotary, Park Nicollet, etc. that works to
support servicemembers living in the community.
Councilmember Mavity stated that if no significant staff time or costs are required to be
expended, she felt the City should move forward with participating in the Yellow Ribbon
program.
Councilmember Santa advised that she has supported and been involved in Yellow Ribbon
efforts in her personal life and felt it was a worthwhile cause.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 23, 2012
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to look into participation in the Beyond
the Yellow Ribbon program if no significant City resources are required.
Councilmember Ross stated that Council has previously discussed the requirements of the City’s
liquor ordinance regarding food sales and asked if Council wants to have a further discussion
regarding its liquor ordinance. She also asked if Council wants to have a further discussion
regarding whether to adopt a policy that states establishments on probation cannot hold a
premises permit for lawful gambling.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would like Council to have further discussion regarding the
liquor ordinance.
Ms. Deno indicated Council may be discussing taproom breweries in the near future and these
issues could be discussed at that time.
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. Project Update – Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure
Project
9. March 2012 Monthly Financial Report
10. First Quarter Investment Report (January – March, 2012)
11. Eliot School Site Design Guidelines and Redevelopment
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: May 7, 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: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt the second reading of an Ordinance approving the Business Park Zoning District,
approve the summary ordinance, and to set the date of publication for May 17, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to create a Business Park Zoning District?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the first reading of the Business Park Zoning District on April 16th.
During the City Council review of the ordinance, there were questions pertaining to ordinance
implementation, impacts to existing property owners, and the ordinance’s relation to the future
redevelopment near the proposed Southwest LRT stations.
Two changes to the ordinance language were requested by the Council. The first is a
modification of the definition for “Research and Development” uses, which now includes
language that prohibits odors and other negative impacts to adjacent properties (added to Section
36-142 (11)). The second is the addition of a requirement that sidewalks be provided along all
sides of a lot that abuts a public street (added to Section 36-232 (10)). The sidewalk requirement
mirrors a requirement already present in the Zoning Ordinance; at the present time, the
requirement extends only to districts zoned for commercial activities.
If approved, the publication of the summary ordinance would take place on May 17th, 2012, in
the Sun Sailor. The ordinance would then be effective on June 1st, 2012.
Ordinance Summary
As part of the 2009 update to the Comprehensive Plan, 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 includes:
• 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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
The new Zoning District is 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. Height
limits in Business Park areas adjacent to residential allow buildings only up to four stories, and
setbacks equal to the proposed building’s height are required.
Implementation
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.
Nearly all of the parcels guided for Business Park in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan were
previously guided for industrial uses. The new Business Park land use classification maintains
those parcels’ status as locations for employment. The new zoning standards increase the
protections provided between the parcels and any adjacent residential uses. For example, height
and setback restrictions are greater in the proposed Business Park Zoning District than in the
Industrial Park Zoning District. Similarly, the uses allowed in the Business Park Zoning District
would be less likely to have negative impacts upon adjacent residential properties in comparison
to the uses allowed in the Industrial Park Zoning District.
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.
Impacts of Rezoning
Prior to initiating the process for consideration of properties that could be rezoned, the City
Council requested that Staff compile a list of all properties under consideration, and whether
present uses would continue to be conforming with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has begun this
process and will report back to the Planning Commission and City Council before beginning the
rezoning process.
Relation to Southwest LRT
While the Business Park Zoning District was been drafted with the intent that it could be applied
throughout the City, many of the areas immediately impacted are near future LRT stations.
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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
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.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Business Park Zoning District.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Creating appropriate districts is important for building an aesthetically pleasing, healthy
community that supports strong, diverse neighborhoods and a variety of transportation modes.
Attachments: Ordinance – Adopting Business Park Zoning District
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Minutes, Planning Commission Meeting of February 1, 2012
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: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
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:
All activities conducted in a BP district shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed
structure except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this chapter.
(1) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited in the BP district.
(2) All delivery service entrances to a building in the BP district shall be from a
public alley, service alley, or off-street parking lot.
(3) 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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
(4) 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.
(5) Off-street parking shall not be located between any buildings and an adjacent
residential property line.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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.
(10) Sidewalks at least five feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot
that abut a public street.
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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
(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.
(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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
(5) Medical and dental office or laboratory.
(6) Museums/art galleries.
(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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
(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.
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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 9
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
e. Snow removal areas shall not be located in the front yard or side yard
abutting a street.
(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:
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 10
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
a. No building shall be located closer than 30 feet or the building height,
whichever is greater, to a single family residential property line.
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. 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.
(5) 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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 11
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
(6) 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.
***
(12) 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.
Research and Development does not result in noxious or offensive odors, sounds,
vibrations, emissions, or any external nuisances upon adjacent properties. 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
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 12
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE CREATING NEW
BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT
This ordinance states that a new Business Park Zoning District has been adopted.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council April 16, 2012
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 17, 2012
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 13
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
B. Business Park Zoning District
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 10-28-ZA
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the action is a request to
recommend approval of a new zoning district, not for the rezoning of any parcels. He
reviewed the extensive discussions held by the Planning Commission on this subject
during 2010 and 2011.
Mr. Fulton spoke about retail and service uses that are proposed.
Mr. Fulton and Commissioner Robertson discussed why a restaurant or retail would not
be located on an upper floor.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the
Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the new Zoning
District “BP – Business Park”. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
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 of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading 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 MapBeltline Blvd. Area
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading Page 15
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 of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Business Park Zoning District 2nd Reading Page 16
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
Bid Tabulation: Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8) - Project #2011-1000 and
Watermain Replacement (Area 8) - Project #2012-1400
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Midwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of contract with the firm in the amount of $1,587,468.05 for the 2012 Local Street
Rehabilitation Project (Area 8) - Project Nos. 2011-1000 & 2012-1400.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to implement our pavement management program?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on April 16, 2012 for the 2012 Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 8.
The 2012 construction season will be the eighth year of implementing the City’s Pavement
Management Program. After this year’s work is complete, a full cycle of street rehabilitation
work will have occurred throughout the city. Work for this year’s program will occur on
selected streets in the Fern Hill, Lake Forest, Cedarhurst and Blackstone Neighborhoods. The
work includes replacing the old pavement with a new asphalt surface. Other work associated
with the project includes drainage system repairs and fire hydrant replacement.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 29, 2012 and
in the Construction Bulletin on April 2, 2012. In addition, plans and specifications are noticed
on the City Website and are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor Quest
CDN.com. Email notification is provided to five minority associations and final printed plans
are made available for viewing at the AGC of Minnesota Planroom and at City Hall.
Thirty-two contractors/vendors purchased plan sets with three Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) identifying themselves as subcontractors. Two DBE’s have been identified in
the low bidder’s subcontractors list.
A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
* Bid corrected upon extension
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Midwest Asphalt Corporation * $1,587468.05
Hardrives, Inc. $1,646,911.77
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $1,665,804.50
C.S. McCrossan Construction $1,693,250.20
Valley Paving, Inc. $1,702,515.32
North Valley, Inc. $1,848,004.65
Bituminous Roadways $2,012,602.30
Engineer’s Estimate $1,641,885.00
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tab: Street Project - (Area 8) - Project #2011-1000 and Project #2012-1400
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Midwest Asphalt Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder. Midwest Asphalt
has worked for the City before and has successfully completed previous contracts.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in mid-May and should be completed by late-
August.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). This project will be funded by the Pavement Management Fund for the associated street
work, the Water Utility Fund for the water main and hydrant replacement work, and the
Stormwater Utility Fund for the drainage structure replacements.
Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Expenditures
Construction Cost $1,587,468.05
Contingencies (5%) $ 79,373.00
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 190,494.00
Total $1,857,335.05
Revenues
Pavement Management Fund $1,785,585.05
Water Utility Fund $ 50,500.00
Stormwater Utility Fund $ 21,250.00
Total $1,857,335.05
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept Donation from Residential Mortgage Group in the amount of $300. The Fire
Department would like to use the donation for restoration of the 1928 American LaFrance fire
truck.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the donation?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
Residential Mortgage Group is graciously donating to the Fire Department an amount of $300 as
part of their “Refer a friend. Build your community”™ program. Every loan that Residential
Mortgage Group closes results in $100 being donated to one of several options locally that is
chosen by the mortgagee. The St. Louis Park Fire Department regularly receives these
donations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
These donations will assist us in restoring the antique fire engine that is currently unusable
without mechanical improvements.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Mark Windschitl, Assistant Chief
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department
RESOLUTION NO. 12-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $300
FOR USE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR RESTORATION OF THE 1928
AMERICAN LAFRANCE FIRE TRUCK
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, this donation of $300 from Residential Mortgage Group’s “Refer a friend.
Build your community™” program will be directed toward the restoration of the Fire
Department’s 1928 American LaFrance Fire Truck;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the donation is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to approve an Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard for Temporary
Private Use of Public Land for outdoor dining.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the proposed outdoor dining area comply with the Temporary Private Use of Public Land Policy?
BACKGROUND:
AD West End LLC owns The Shops at West End. Sopranos Italian Kitchen is an existing tenant
within the shopping center. The tenant proposes to use a portion of the public right-of-way on
the south side of 16th Street W. for outdoor dining. AD West End LLC has applied for an
encroachment agreement to accommodate the tenant’s plan.
The outdoor dining plan (see attached map) shows 52 seats outside. Approximately 24 of the 52
seats would be within the 16th Street W. right-of-way. Any other improvements related to the
outdoor dining area (i.e. tables, planters, stanchions, wind breaks, heaters, artwork or statuary, et
cetera) must be temporary in nature, and the City is not responsible for any damages to such
items resulting from them being within the right-of-way. The plan provides at least six feet of
clearance along 16th Street W. for pedestrians to safely and conveniently pass by.
Staff finds the request is consistent with the City policy for Temporary Private Use of Public
land. Sopranos Italian Kitchen is eligible for an encroachment agreement. Outdoor dining is a
use anticipated by the policy and in the West End Redevelopment Planned Unit Development
(PUD). The proposed outdoor dining plan does not unduly impede any public use of the
property, and A.D. West End LLC is responsible for maintenance of all sidewalks (public and
private) in the West End Redevelopment PUD.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The costs of executing this agreement will be covered by the application fee paid by the applicant.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed outdoor seating plan contributes to a dynamic, vibrant and active street life at The
Shops at West End and can increase the use of this gathering place.
Attachments: Draft Encroachment Agreement & Map
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Scott Brink City Engineer
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
(reserved for recording information)
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this 7th day of May, 2012, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"); and AD WEST END LLC, an Indiana limited
liability company ("Owner").
1. BACKGROUND. Owner is the fee owner of that parcel of property with a street
address of 1600 West End Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, and State
of Minnesota, which parcel is legally described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto ("Subject Property").
Owner desires to allow its tenant at 5331 16th Street W. to seasonally place and maintain temporary
improvements for an outdoor dining area, including items such as tables, chairs, and related
appurtenances (the “Temporary Improvements”). Such Temporary Improvements will encroach
upon the City's drainage and utility easement and right-of-way for 16th Street West (the “City
Property”). The Owner has requested that it be permitted to place the Temporary Improvements on
the City Property from March 15 to November 30 annually.
2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby approves the
encroachment onto the City Property for the Temporary Improvements as shown on “Exhibit B”
and further described on “Exhibit C”, with such encroachment to be permitted between March 15
and November 30 annually.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
3. LIMITATION ON USE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS. The
Temporary Improvements shall be used solely for the purpose of an outdoor dining area operated as
part of the adjoining restaurant on the Subject Property. The use of the Temporary Improvements
will be reasonably modified by Owner from time to time as requested by the City Engineer and
Zoning Administrator. The use must comply with all licensing and other general requirements of
the City Code, all applicable conditions of PUD approval and must at all times maintain a clear
public walkway that is at least six feet wide along 16th Street West.
4. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY. In consideration of being allowed to
encroach on the City Property, Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to
indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any injury, expense, damage, liability or
claim incurred by the City, arising directly or indirectly out of Owner’s use of the City Property or
Temporary Improvements, including reimbursement of reasonable attorneys fees and any other
costs incurred by the City with respect to any such injury, expense, damage, liability or claim.
5. TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.
Should the City reasonably determine that the Owner’s use of the City Property is detrimental to
public safety or the free flow of pedestrian traffic, the City may modify or suspend this Agreement
at any time in case of an emergency, or in a non-emergency situation, modify, suspend or terminate
by giving the Owner thirty (30) days advance written notice. Such notice shall direct the Owner as
to whether the Temporary Improvements on the City Property must be permanently removed or the
use otherwise modified. If the City requires removal, the Owner shall cause the removal of the
Temporary Improvements from the City Property within the thirty (30) day period following
notice. If the Owner fails to do so, the City may remove the Temporary Improvements from within
the City Property at the Owner’s expense, and dispose of the Temporary Improvements as the City
deems appropriate in its sole discretion.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
6. ANNUAL TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding the provisions
of Paragraph 5 herein, the City may terminate this Agreement without cause on December 31 of any
calendar year by giving Owner written notice by November 30 of that year.
7. NOTICE. Written notice to the Owner shall be effective by actual receipt by the
Owner or by mailing the notice to the property taxpayer at the address shown by Hennepin County.
8. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded against the title to the Subject
Property and, subject to termination as provided herein, shall run with the land and be binding upon,
and accrue to the benefit of, any subsequent owner.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: _____________________________________
(SEAL) Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
And ____________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of
______________, 2012, by Jeff Jacobs and by Thomas K. Harmening, respectively the Mayor and
City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
OWNER
AD WEST END LLC
By:
Its:
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of
______________, 2012, by , the
_____________________________________ of AD WEST END LLC, an Indiana limited liability
company, on behalf of said company.
____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
EXHIBIT “A”
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Subject Property
Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 7
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
EXHIBIT “B”
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
← NORTH
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 8
Subject: Encroachment Agreement at 1600 Park Place Boulevard
EXHIBIT “C”
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Sopranos Italian Kitchen
5331 16th Street West
Temporary Improvements – Per Exhibit “B”
(Within the City ROW – Part of the Overall Improvements)
Qty. Description
6 Movable Patio Tables
24 Movable Patio Chairs
Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4e
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:
Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change
orders and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and
2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to grant the City Manager the change order authority requested? The
project will continue to be administered in accordance with the City’s existing policy.
BACKGROUND:
The overall Fire Stations Project is now 89% complete. The project is currently on schedule and
on budget. The project will be substantially complete (95%) by the end of May 2012. An
overall budget summary and a brief description of the construction progress are provided as
attachments.
The City Charter states that the City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and is
allowed to approve and execute contracts in compliance with State Law. The City’s internal
procedure/policy allows the City Manager to approve general purchasing up to a cumulative
maximum of $100,000. In the event the $100,000 amount is exceeded, City Council approval is
required. The City Manager is authorized to approve change orders on contracts up to a
cumulative total of $100,000.
City Council approved $100,000 increases in the City Manager’s authority for the Fire Stations
Project on September 19, 2011 and again on January 17, 2012. Staff requests the City Council
give the City Manager authority to administratively approve an additional $100,000 up to a
cumulative total of $400,000 in order to expedite pending change orders.
Construction Contingency (5%) $578,350
Approved Change Orders ($247,939)
Pending Change Orders Under Review ($173,253)
Projected Contingency Remaining $157,158
The budgeted construction contingency for the Fire Stations Project is $578,350 (5%). Change
order costs are paid from the contingency budget, which would still have $157,158 remaining if
all the pending costs were approved.
Attached is a letter from the construction manager, Kraus-Anderson Construction, which
provides a list and general description of approved and pending change orders that have occurred
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)
since January 2012. Please note that the list excludes change orders reported to City Council
previously and excludes changes that were cost neutral or credits to the project.
Change orders, orders for additional work items, and quantity adjustments are typical for any
construction project. The Fire Stations Replacement project has been no exception. The
magnitude of the project simply amplifies the number of changes and associated costs beyond
those of smaller projects. The issues arising during construction have been addressed with the
contractors by Kraus Anderson with City concurrence and approval in accordance with City
policy.
Approval of this item allows the City Manager to authorize up to an additional $100,000 for
necessary changes on this project for a cumulative total of $400,000.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project is in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The project budget for
constructing both stations is $15.5 million. The sources of funds include $12.5 million in Build
America bonds issued in December 2010. The remaining portion will be paid with approximately
$3 million from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
Staff anticipates the actual project costs will be approximately $15.1 million based on the
construction bids received in March and the construction progress to date. The project continues
to be constructed within the original budgeted amount and costs continue to be monitored in
accordance with State and City regulations.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Change Order Summary from Kraus-Anderson Construction
Overall Project Budget Summary
Construction Progress Update and Photos
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Innovative Construction Solutions
8625 Rendova Street NE
P.O. Box 158
Circle Pines, MN 55014
O 763.786.7711
F 763.786.2650
www.krausanderson.com
Affirmative Action / Equal Employment Opportunity Employer
April 30, 2012
Mr. Sean Walther
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: St. Louis Park Fire Station No. 1 and No. 2
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Walther:
The following is a summary list of approved/pending change orders for Fire Station No. 1 and
Fire Station No. 2. This summary lists changes by Issue and Station and are sorted into the
following four categories: structural, electrical, mechanical and architectural.
A. Structural Revisions for Fire Station No. 1
● PCO Nos. 20,26,43
Misc. structural steel, deck and
concrete changes. These changes
affected the concrete contractor,
the steel erector and steel supplier. $4,951.00
B. Structural Revisions for Fire Station No. 2
● PCO No. 29
Misc. structural steel, deck and
concrete changes. These changes
affected the concrete contractor,
the steel erector and steel supplier $870.00
C. Electrical Revisions at Fire Station No. 1
• PCO Nos. 32,118R, Additional conduits and lighting $38,533.50
123,124,140,145,152, modifications. These changes
153 affected the electrical contractor.
D. Electrical Revisions at Fire Station No. 2
● PCO Nos. 93R,114,118
125,128,134,135
Additional conduits and lighting
modifications. These changes
affected the electrical contractor. $23,369.00
E. Mechanical Revisions at Fire Station No. 1
● PCO Nos. 80,109,114,
128,133,136,144
Ductwork and piping modifications.
These changes affected the fire
protection and mechanical
contractors.$27,737.00
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 3
Mr. Sean Walther -2- April 30, 2012
City of St. Louis Park
F. Mechanical Revisions at Fire Station No. 2
● PCO Nos. 112,120,124,
127,139
Ductwork and piping modifications.
These changes affected the fire
protection and mechanical
contractors.$12,262.00
G. Miscellaneous Architectural Changes at Fire Station No. 1
● PCO Nos. 66,72,98,
120R,121,122,125,
126,127,129R,138,139
141R,142,147,148,150
151,154,155,159,160,
161,163,164
Finishes and miscellaneous
architectural changes. These
changes affected the masonry,
tile, carpentry, drywall, painting,
flooring, glass, hardware and
ceiling contractors. $46,414.04
H. Miscellaneous Architectural Changes at Fire Station No. 2
● PCO Nos. 89,94,119,
121,122,130,131,133,
136
Finishes and miscellaneous
architectural changes. These
changes affected the masonry,
tile, carpentry, drywall, painting,
flooring, glass, hardware and
ceiling contractors.$10,633.15
To date, the total cost of approved/pending change orders is $271,992.04 for Fire Station No. 1 and
$149,200.00 for Fire Station No. 2. The grand total for both stations is $421,192.04.
Very truly yours,
KRAUS-ANDERSON® CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Brian L. Hook
Senior Project Manager
BLH:rh
Enclosure
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 4
Date: 5/5/2011
Update #:11
Update Date: 4/30/2012
Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: May-11
Project:Fire Stations #1 & #2
Location:St. Louis Park
Designer:DLR Group/KKE
Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks
Project Funds Available $0 $0 $15,516,197
Utility Rebates $0 $0 $0 TBD
Interest Earnings $0
Total Available Dollars $0 $0 $15,516,197
Construction Costs Budget
Building & Site Construction $0 $0 $10,399,785 Bids including Alt #1 and #2
Project General Conditions $282,992 $224,407 $507,399 Direct Cost Items
CM Site Services $0 $0 $502,335 Kraus-Anderson
CM Fee $0 $0 $157,500 Kraus-Anderson
Construction Contingency $355,000 $223,350 $578,350 5% Contingency
Small Utility Relocation/New Service Charges $22,354 $38,702 $61,056 Actual Qwest at #1, Xcel actual at #2
Owner Direct Items $2,670 $23,724 $26,394 Design #1 Helicals, Fiber relocate at FS#2
Interior Signage Allowance $9,000 $7,000 $16,000 Allowance
Home Demo Contract For Fire Station #1 $38,083 $0 $38,083 Actual Contact including change order
Total Construction Budget $12,286,902
Soft Cost Budget
A/E Fees $0 $0 $498,750 DLR/KKE
A&E Project Reimbursable or Constr. Admin.$0 $0 $24,000 DLR/KKE
A/E Additional Services $0 $0 $70,676 DLR/KKE/Faithful Gould
Overall Project Budget - Post Bid
A/E Additional Services $0 $0 $70,676 DLR/KKE/Faithful Gould
Civil, Structural, M&E Design Fees $0 $0 incl.
FFE Programming $0 $0 $0
Building Permit Fee $54,049 $30,574 $84,622 Actual City Fees/ MPCA/Hennepin County
Zoning Application Fee $2,800 $2,800 $5,600 Preliminary Info from City
SAC & WAC Costs $0 $0 $0 Per City Information
Construction Testing / Special Inspections Testing $34,385 $30,595 $64,980 Braun- Actual Amount
Site Survey $14,632 $8,556 $23,188 WSB-Sunde#1/Loucks #2
Initial Park Soil Borings $0 $8,465 $8,465 Braun(by City)
Geotechnical Exploration / Soil Borings $0 $0 $13,777 Actual Braun Costs
Plan Productions / Distribution - Bidding $7,979 $7,500 $15,479 Actual as of 4/11/12
Total Soft Cost Budget $809,538
Owner Costs Budget $0
Land Acquisition/Utility/Taxes Costs $858,944 $0 $858,944 Actual
Owner Moving/Relocation Costs $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 Estimated/Mobile Home Costs
Public Infrastructure $0 $0 $0
Capitalized Interest on Land $0 $0 $0
Capitalized Interest on Building $0 $0 $0
Loan Expenses or Bonding Costs $1,900 $1,900 $3,800 Per City Info
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment $350,000 $200,000 $550,000 Allowance
Technology / Equipment $129,000 $104,000 $233,000 Per Modified City Info
Opticom Relocation at FS#2 $0 $12,460 $12,460 Actual
Radio System Equipment $0 $0 $35,000 Allowance
Art Requirement $50,000 $0 $15,000 Memorial at #1
Special Consultants $14,200 $10,069 $24,269 SRF / Surveying FS #2
Legal Fees / Bid Notices $7,890 $8,518 $16,408 Per City Info
Project Commissioning / Validation $28,450 Actual Hallberg
SLP CD Budget Postbid4-30-12 - Owner-Project Budget Page 1 of 2 Print Date: 4/30/2012
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 5
Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks
Test and Balance $12,300 Actual PO
Phase 1 & 2 and Hazmat Environmental Study $0 $0 $45,646 Actual Braun Costs
Environmental Monitoring $0 $0 $30,000 Allowance Braun
Environmental Abatement Costs/Abatement Testing $63,661 Lindstrom/Braun
Geothermal Drilling / Report $11,367 $11,367 $22,734 Actual Braun Costs
Storm Water Charges, Requirements $0 $0 $0
City Approval Fees & Park Ded.$0 $0 $0
City Administration Costs $1,283 $0 $1,283
Travel / Site Visits $0 $11 $11
Misc. Owner Expenses $71 $6,500 $6,571
Misc. Owner Expenses - Storage Costs $16,800 $16,800 $33,600 Belt Line Properties
Tree Replacement Fund $0 $0 $20,585 FS #1 & FS #2
Platting Costs $3,250 $3,250 $6,500
Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0 $6,615 Actual Quote
Total Owner Costs Budget $2,076,836
Total Project Costs $15,173,276 Constr. Cost + Soft Costs + Owner Costs
Project Balance Available $342,921
Project Cost Revisions
Executed Change Orders to Date $144,918.00 $103,021.00 $247,939.00
Pending Changes Currently Under Review $127,074.00 $46,179.00 $173,253.00
Projected Contingency Remaining $157,158.00
SLP CD Budget Postbid4-30-12 - Owner-Project Budget Page 2 of 2 Print Date: 4/30/2012
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 6
Fire Stations Construction Photos (2012)
Fire Station No. 1 (3750 Wooddale Avenue S.):
Construction is approximately 93% complete. Sidewalk construction is complete. Interior
building finishes are nearly complete. Furniture is moved in and being installed. Landscaping is
underway. The final lift of pavement is scheduled for May 4, 2012. The Fire Department plans
to begin operating from the new station by mid-May, 2012. Fire Administration will move from
City Hall to Fire Station No. 1 by the end of May. The popular annual Fire Department Open
House will be held at the new Fire Station No. 1 on Tuesday, June 12.
View from Oxford Street (looking SE)
View from Goodrich Avenue (looking NW)
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 7
View from Goodrich Avenue (Looking NE)
Lobby Training Room/Emergency Operations Ctr.
Administration Office Apparatus Bays #3 – #5
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 8
Fire Station No. 2 (2262 Louisiana Avenue S.):
Construction is approximately 87% complete. Demolition of the old station began April 23,
2012 and is now complete. The City is waiting for Xcel Energy to relocate a transformer. Once
the transformer is moved, another retaining wall and more soil import will begin to build up the
south side of the site. Landscaping and irrigation installation on the north side of the site is
underway. Our goal is to have the south side at finished grade before the ceremonial ribbon
cutting on May 12, 2012. The south driveway, parking lot, and landscaping will be done by June
1, 2012.
View from Louisiana Avenue (looking NW) on February 1, 2012
Fire Station #2 flag raising on March 12, 2012 Start of operations on March 12, 2012
Demolition began on April 23, 2012 Apparatus Bays
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)Page 9
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4f
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:
Boards and Commissions Policies
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 10-026 adopted March 15,
2010 approving rules and procedures for Boards and Commissions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council wish to add a statement that a person cannot serve on more than one board
or commission concurrently to the rules and procedures for boards and commissions?
• Does the Council wish to add a statement that board or commission members may not serve
on the same board or commission as another member of the immediate family, including a
registered domestic partner, with student or youth being exempt from this provision to the
rules and procedures for boards and commissions?
• Does the Council want to expand the listing of the boards and commissions covered to
include CEAC, Housing Authority and other boards and commissions as created or
determined by Council to the rules and procedures for boards and commissions?
BACKGROUND:
On April 23rd Council discussed this topic at a study session and directed staff to modify the
rules and procedures for Boards and Commissions regarding serving on more than one board,
and include the definition to clarify the practice how Council reviews membership regarding
immediate family or same household members serving on commissions and also to expand the
listing of boards and commissions covered by this policy.
Proposed amended language to rules and procedures regarding boards and commissions
for Sections A and B are underlined below:
A. Boards
The St. Louis Park City Charter grants the council authority to form various boards and
commissions by ordinance. Boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the City
Council and are conferred various degrees of decision making power. The City Council is the
sole policy making body of the city. Some boards and commissions include in their membership
persons appointed by the school board.
Boards and commissions of the city which have been created by ordinance and are governed by
the provisions of these rules and procedures are as follows:
• Board of Zoning Appeals
• Human Rights Commission
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
• Planning Commission
• Police Advisory Commission
• Telecommunications Advisory Commission
• CEAC
• Housing Authority
• And other boards or commissions as created by or determined by Council
C. Membership and Terms
Membership requirements are set by ordinance council. All board and commission members are
appointed by the council or, in some cases, by the school board. Youth members may be
appointed and are conferred voting status except in the case of the Planning Commission and
Board of Zoning Appeals. Board and Commission members may not chair serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission at a time and commissioners may only serve one
consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members cannot serve on the same
commission as a member of the immediate family, registered domestic partner or members of the
same household. Definition for immediate family: the immediate family includes the following
individual and the spouse or registered domestic partner: mother, father, siblings, spouse or
registered domestic partner, children, step relatives, grandparents and also includes members of
the same household. Student or youth are exempt from this provision.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION NO. 10-026 ADOPTED MARCH 15, 2010
APPROVING RULES AND PROCEDURES
FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council has established certain boards and
commissions to serve as advisory to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes its various boards and commissions to comply with
all regulations to which they are subject concerning conduct of meetings including those
provisions contained in the Minnesota State Statutes, the City Charter and the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the attached rules and procedures serve as a guideline for operating those
boards and commissions and they set standards for the conduct of staff and commission
members.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby
amends the “Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions” attached as Exhibit A and shall
adhere to the rules as stated therein unless revised by a majority vote of the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
Resolution No. 12-_____ Exhibit A
Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions
Amending Resolution No. 10-026
Adopted by City Council May 7, 2012
A. Boards
The St. Louis Park City Charter grants the council authority to form various boards and
commissions by ordinance. Boards and commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the City
Council and are conferred various degrees of decision making power. The City Council is the
sole policy making body of the city. Some boards and commissions include in their membership
persons appointed by the school board.
Boards and commissions of the city which have been created by ordinance and are governed by
the provisions of these rules and procedures are as follows:
• Board of Zoning Appeals
• Human Rights Commission
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
• Planning Commission
• Police Advisory Commission
• Telecommunications Advisory Commission
• CEAC
• Housing Authority
• And other boards as created by or determined by Council
In addition, other ad hoc groups may be formed as needed by resolution of the council.
B. Staff Liaisons
Each board and commission is assigned a staff liaison. Duties of the staff liaison are, in general,
to facilitate or assist in the meetings, to record attendance and to provide information and
direction as requested by the commission. It is also the responsibility of the staff liaison to
inform the city council of any problems or issues that may arise.
C. Membership and Terms
Membership requirements are set by ordinance council. All board and commission members are
appointed by the council or, in some cases, by the school board. Youth members may be
appointed and are conferred voting status except in the case of the Planning Commission and
Board of Zoning Appeals. Board and Commission members may not chair serve concurrently on
more than one board or commission at a time and commissioners may only serve one
consecutive year as chair. Board and commission members cannot serve on the same
commission as a member of the immediate family, registered domestic partner or members of the
same household. Definition for immediate family: the immediate family includes the following
individual and the spouse or registered domestic partner: mother, father, siblings, spouse or
registered domestic partner, children, step relatives, grandparents and also includes members of
the same household. Student or youth are exempt from this provision.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
D. Qualifications
Members must be St. Louis Park residents, but need not have expertise in any particular area.
Willingness to serve and be involved are the most important attributes of members. Per
Resolution No. 01-078, the city council will not consider applications for appointment to
advisory commissions from regular full-time or part-time St. Louis Park employees (as defined
in the city’s personnel manual). City Council will not consider applications for appointment to
commissions from other employees working for the city such as seasonal, temporary, part time,
paid on call firefighters or contract employees if such appointment could cause a conflict of
interest.
E. Attendance
Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership on any board or
commission. Irregular attendance and frequent absences are detrimental to the entire group and
put undue pressure on those members who do attend meetings. Regular attendance allows
members to learn about and discuss issues in depth which contributes to more effective decision
making. Continued absenteeism is considered grounds for dismissal by the council.
F. By-Laws
Each board and commission shall create by-laws and meeting procedures. By-laws must be
consistent with the City Code and should follow the Council’s template for by-laws. Whenever
changes are made, copies of the by-laws should be forwarded to the Administrative Services
department for the Council’s review. Council has 30 days to review and amend the by-laws per
the City Code.
G. Meetings
Meeting times and locations are set according to each commission’s by-laws. Each commission
should defer to the Council’s meeting policy for meetings which occur on or near holidays. A
quorum of the board is made up of a majority of members currently appointed. All meetings
will be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the City Charter and the
Municipal Code of Ordinances. The proceedings of the meetings should be conducted using
standard parliamentary procedure. The City Council has adopted The Standard Code of
Parliamentary Procedure, as their guide and that publication is available in the Administrative
Services department. A simplified summary of these procedures is also available for use by
commission chairs and staff liaisons.
H. Minutes and other Records
Minutes of each meeting should be prepared and maintained by the staff liaison or designee.
Following commission approval minutes should be forwarded to the Administrative Services
department for placement on the city council agenda.
All board and commission records must be maintained in accordance with the city’s records
retention policy. Please contact the Administrative Services department if you have questions
regarding retention and preferred storage medium.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
I. Annual Report
Each board or commission shall prepare a draft written report for the Council which includes
activities undertaken in the past year, a progress report on the previous year’s goals, and goals
for the coming year. Every effort should be made to submit the report to the Council by January
1st. After reviewing the report, the Council may meet with the group in a study session to discuss
the report and other issues of concern to the commission prior to approving the report and, as
needed, may request the Commission to also provide a mid-year progress report.
J. Recruitment
When a vacancy occurs it is the responsibility of the staff liaison to inform the Administrative
Services department of the vacancy. Recruitment is typically done using any combination of
advertising opportunity available. Local newspaper, Park Perspective, direct mailing,
neighborhood newsletter, the city’s website, etc. are all acceptable forms of advertisement.
Applications are maintained by the Administrative Services department and are forwarded to
interested citizens upon request. In certain instances a supplemental application may be created
to determine suitability of candidates.
Upon receipt of the application a representative of the Administrative Services department will
contact the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the application and to discuss the interview and
appointment process.
Applications will be retained in the active file six months following receipt.
K. Candidate Review Process
Written applications are forwarded to Councilmembers for review as openings occur.
Councilmembers will inform the Administrative Services department of the candidates they wish
to interview based upon their review of written materials within two weeks of receiving the
materials. Interviews are conducted by the City Council, usually prior to a Monday evening
meeting. Following the interview, the Mayor will inform the Administrative Services
department about the status of each applicant. The Administrative Services department will mail
a thank you letter to each applicant with information regarding next steps in the process.
L. Appointment
Appointments are made by the City Council at a regular meeting of the council. Council will
inform the Administrative Services department when an appointment is to be made so that the
appointment can be added to the council agenda.
Following the appointment the Administrative Services department will contact the new member
and inform them of their appointment. A copy of the application will also be forwarded to the
staff liaison.
The staff liaison will provide the new member with meeting information and discuss
expectations and pertinent issues with them prior to the next meeting of the board or
commission.
Appointments are sometimes made to unexpired terms, and often more than one vacancy exists
on a commission. In that case, the specific term occupied by the new member is determined by
the commission and communicated to the Administrative Services department.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 7
Subject: Boards and Commissions Policies
M. Rosters
The staff liaison is responsible for keeping an updated roster of the commission which should
include contact information, term of office and date of appointment. The liaison is responsible
for notifying the Administrative Services department about roster changes.
N. Reappointment
Reappointments are made as needed by the city council. Performance and attendance by Board
and Commission members requesting reappointment will be considered by the Council. Council
may choose to re-interview any commission member as a means to determine whether the
commission member should continue to serve. A member may continue to serve beyond their
expiration date until a reappointment is made.
O. Resignation
When a resignation occurs, the staff liaison should contact the Administrative Services
department and forward a copy of any correspondence that may have been received.
Administrative Services will then initiate recruitment to fill the vacant position. A member may
continue to serve beyond their expiration date until a successor is appointed. Members may be
removed with or without cause by the City Council.
P. Recognition
At the beginning of each year the Council will recognize members who have left their position
during the prior year. Appreciation activities will be planned for all commission members on a
regular basis.
Q. Orientation
The Administrative Services department and the staff liaisons will provide orientation for new
board and commission members as well as new staff liaisons.
R. Conflict of Interest
No commissioner shall:
(1) Enter into any contractual arrangement with the city during the term serving as an appointed
board or commissioner member and for a period of one year after leaving office, unless
authorized by Minnesota statutes § 471.88.
(2) Use their position to secure any special privilege or exemption for themselves or others.
(3) Use their office or otherwise act in any manner which would give the appearance of or result
in any impropriety or conflict of interest.
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4g
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:
Acceptance of Donation to Westwood Hills Nature Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept a donation from Chandler Dykes in the amount of $46.53 for Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gifts with restrictions on their use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
Chandler is graciously donating to Westwood Hills Nature Center an amount of $46.53. This
money is unspent funds that he personally raised as part of his Eagle Scout Award Project. This
donation is given with restrictions that the donation will provide support for programs and
services at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will assist in programming youth activities.
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 a connected and
engaged community”.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation to the Westwood Hills Nature Center
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM CHANDLER DYKES IN THE AMOUNT OF $46.53
FOR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Chandler Dykes desires to assist Westwood Hills Nature Center with
support for programs and services with a donation of $46.53; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Chandler Dykes with the understanding it will
be used for programs and services at the Nature Center.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4h
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:
Bid Tabulation: Standing Seam Roof Replacement on Park Buildings, Project No. LMC11076951
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Xterior Xperts the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
contract with the firm in the amount of $180,409.00 for the replacement of Standing Seam Roofs
on various Park Buildings, Project No. LMC11076951.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with the replacement of park building roofs?
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on April 24, 2012 for the replacement of standing seam roofs at various park
buildings due to damage from storm with hail, swept through St. Louis Park on May 10, 2011.
Facilities at Aquila, Birchwood, Carpenter, Dakota, Fern Hill, Freedom, Louisiana Oaks, Nelson,
Northside and Oak Hill Parks were damaged as a result of the storm and are in need of
replacement. Repairs are being coordinated through insurance with LMCIT. Replacing the park
building roofs increases the life of the building.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on April 12, 19, 2012
and in the Construction Bulletin on April 9, 16, 2012. In addition, plans and specifications are
noticed on the City Website and are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor
Quest CDN.com.
A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
* Bid corrected upon extension
EVALUATION OF BIDS:
Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Xterior Xperts as the lowest responsible bidder. Xterior Xperts has worked for the
City before and has successfully completed previous contracts.
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE:
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in mid-May and should be completed by August.
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Progressive Building Systems, Inc. $227,033
Xterior Xperts * $180,409
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: Standing Seam Roof Replacements, Project No. LMC 11076951
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This claim has been submitted to the League of Minnesota Cities. The City will pay the claim
from the uninsured loss fund, the League tracks the expenses and when expenses have reached
the $50,000 per occurrence deductible, the League will then begin reimbursing the City.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Keeping our park buildings maintained and useable is consistent with the City’s first strategic
direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.”
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4i
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – March 20, 2012
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Emily Goldstein, Brian Johnson, Jeff Mueller and Rhoda Quick
Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson
Guests: Chris Berne, St. Louis Park Business owner
B. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Mueller, seconded by Commissioner Goldstein, to approve
the agenda as presented. The motion passed 4-0.
C. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Goldstein, seconded by Commissioner Quick, to approve the
minutes of February 21, 20012, as presented. The motion passed 4-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Chair Johnson noted the guests at the last meeting who presented the Human Rights Youth
League have a religious affiliation and the HRC does not want to become involved with just
one religious group, so are not able to endorse their project.
Ms. Olson added that she talked to the Communications staff about the PSA the group had
put together. There are community channels that the group can pursue and have them
broadcast the PSA’s on their own.
Ms. Olson indicated that she had previously sent an Email to Commissioners about an
Outstanding Citizen Award that the City is establishing to acknowledge residents
contributions. They are putting together a task force made up of representatives of three
different commissions to review the award nominations. Two applications have been
received. Members would be called upon as needed over the next three years. They are also
looking for more award nominations.
III. Anti-Bullying Project
Sub-Committee/Task Force and HRC’s role
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: HRC Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2012
Chair Johnson provided background of how the Commission got to the bullying project. The intention
is to start within schools and then expand into the community. The first goal is to screen the movie
Bully and have guest speakers to get people talking more about bullying issues.
Mr. Berne indicated he is a member of the Brooklyn Park Human Rights Commission and would
bring it up at their meeting.
Commissioners felt it was good to talk with other HRC groups to see if they had ideas or wanted
to work together.
Commissioner Quick noted she had recently been at Pacer Center and they are really involved with
bullying and have information available to schools for free. They also have educators who can speak
and they have puppets to use for kids. She would check into it further.
Ms. Olson suggested handing out information at the ice cream social and starting to promote
their Anti-Bullying project. They could look into having Pacer staff bring the puppets to the
event.
Chair Johnson stated that the movie Bully had been given an “R” rating, but the Directors were
hoping to get the rating changed to PG-13, which would make it more accessible for youth to
see. It is going to be released at the Lagoon Theater and then to major theaters.
Ms. Olson stated the next step is forming a joint task force with members of DPAC, PAC and HRC.
The goal is to create the task force in April and begin having monthly meetings in May. They would
want those task force members to be liaisons between the joint task force and their commissions.
The objectives are to develop common language around bullying, educating and building awareness
in the community. They are not looking for policy change. Commissioners Johnson and Quick
agreed to be on the joint task force.
IV. Planning for 2012 Community Event – may Children First Ice Cream Social
Ms. Olson stated in the past they haven’t had a meeting in May and instead have had commissioners
staff a booth at the ice cream social. The ice cream social is Sunday, May 20th from 2 PM – 5 PM at
Wolfe Park. She will bring a sign up sheet to the next meeting. They can provide handouts about their
Anti-Bullying project and let people know what is coming up. It is also good to have something
interactive or handouts (having a prize wheel was suggested).
V. New Business
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4j
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 4, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of March 7, 2012
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of March 7, 2012.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Darchei Noam Synagogue
Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Location: 2950 Joppa Avenue South
Applicant: Congregation Darchei Noam
Case No.: 12-10-S and 12-11-CUP
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the request for
construction of a new religious institution in the R-4 District requires a conditional use
permit. A preliminary and final plat is required for the small unplatted portion of the lot.
The proposed synagogue is immediately adjacent to Minnetonka Blvd. and Joppa Ave.
He noted that the site is surrounded by apartment buildings to the west, an apartment
building to the north, a synagogue and retail to the east, and an apartment and an office
building to the south. He stated that extensive meetings have been held between the
applicant and staff.
Commissioner Robertson asked how much street parking is considered to be required
parking for the existing synagogue across the street.
Mr. Fulton responded that on-street parking was reviewed by both the City Engineer and
the Police Dept. who noted that there haven’t been any complaints about excessive or
unusual on-street parking in the area. Mr. Fulton said that on the weekend of March
30th staff did some surveys of parking. He said between Friday evening and Saturday,
there were about 22 total cars parked on both sides of Joppa between Sunset and
Minnetonka Blvd. He stated there is capacity for about 30 cars. He said it appears that
the street should very easily be able to accommodate the eight parking spaces counted for
Darchei Noam. He noted it did not appear that the existing synagogue was utilizing the
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2012
parking at the retail establishment immediately to the south. There may be an
opportunity to create some sort of shared parking agreement. The city parking lot to the
east was not being fully utilized by the congregation. Mr. Fulton said it is important to
take into account the two similar uses and it appears there are opportunities to address
other parking availability if needed.
Commissioner Shapiro remarked that the existing synagogue is an orthodox congregation
and it’s unlikely that many of the 22 cars parked on the street were being used by
members of the synagogue.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was any discussion about moving the single family
home rather than demolishing it.
Mr. Fulton replied that issue has not been raised, and the applicant could answer that
question.
Commissioner Carper asked about the gradient change on the lot.
Mr. Fulton stated that the parking lot will be roughly at grade. The synagogue will be
below the existing grade along Minnetonka Blvd.
Commissioner Carper asked about fencing and lighting at the back of the parking lot.
Mr. Fulton said the apartment building is set about 50 ft. from the property line to the
north. The applicant will construct a required fence adjacent to the parking lot. The
lighting will not be very tall and will probably be a single light so there won’t be much
spill over light. He said the applicant did provide a lighting plan which meets the standard
of the code.
Jay Isenberg, architect, said the applicant has been meeting with staff for six to nine
months.
Chair Roberts asked if either synagogue has a formal parking agreement with the owners
of the large parking lot across the street from the site.
Mr. Isenberg said there aren’t any formal agreements at this point because the applicant
has complied with the requirements of the CUP and the zoning. But, further discussions
on this can be held.
Jan Burke, a member of the Building Committee, spoke about the condition of the house
which will be removed. She said the house, built in 1900, is not in very good shape and
would not be worth moving.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Thomas Nelson, owner of Joppa Lane Apartments, 2888 Joppa Ave., thanked the
applicant for meeting with him regarding their plans. He said the applicant has done a
nice job. He said he is concerned, however, as this part of St. Louis Park continues to
improve, how many street spots are being allocated for how many purposes. Are these
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2012
parking spots being over-allocated? He recommended that parking be worked out in
advance of construction rather than later.
Mr. Nelson noted that some of the irrigation management and tree improvements in the
plans are actually on his property. He said there are no formal agreements with the
congregation as to the nature of those improvements. He wants to see the parcel
improved, and the use if compliant is fine, but nothing is firm or in place yet.
Mr. Nelson stated he would be in agreement to have improvements on his property if the
improvements are done in a way that adds value to his property, are appropriately
documented and agreed upon as to planting and maintenance, and if there is a
construction easement and insurance in place while the work is being done.
Mr. Isenberg said as soon as the applicant understood the gravity and issues involved in
the stormwater management and the existing conditions of the site
they met with Mr. Nelson to discuss a solution that worked for both parties. He said they
haven’t resolved everything but the best solution does involve improvements on the
Nelson property.
Mark Fredrickson, 2851 Joppa Ave. S., said he and his wife have lived at this address for
18 years. They are very happy that a new building will be constructed on the parcel. He
said they are concerned because only one car can pass through at a time when cars are
parked on both sides of Joppa Ave. on Friday night and Saturdays. Snow makes the
situation worse. He stated that he thinks there is a significant parking issue already, and
it needs to be addressed. Mr. Fredrickson said over the past weekend there was parking
on Sunset Blvd. and he has seen parking on both sides of Joppa Ave. pushed on to Sunset
Blvd. Mr. Fredrickson said his second concern regards the current sidewalk. He said all
weekend long people either stay on the sidewalk on the west side of the street until they
get to the sidewalk, and then cross into the street, or come in to the street from Fern Hill
Park across the parking lot and walk down the middle of the street. He said he’s
concerned about more foot traffic in the street on Joppa Ave., especially in the winter
months when it is more dangerous. He suggested it could be alleviated if there is a
continuing sidewalk from Torah Academy’s property.
Chair Kramer asked about safety and foot traffic.
Judy Shapiro, president, Darchei Noam congregation, said people do tend to walk in the
streets. She said people could be encouraged to wear reflective arm bands when they
leave the synagogue Friday and Saturday night.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Kramer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said if the street gets too constricted, the city could look at not
having street parking adjacent to the lot across the way. He said he didn’t see a need to
have street parking alongside the parking lot and that could alleviate the narrowness. He
said the applicant meets the requirement for trees even without the trees planted on the
neighbor’s property. Since the applicant is over the requirement and they are just trying
to improve that corner, he is comfortable with improvements on the neighbor’s property.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2012
He spoke about the small gap in sidewalk that would be created and thought it could be
added to the City’s sidewalks and trails program.
Commissioner Morris said he recommends that staff and the applicant work closer with
the community on traffic and pedestrian safety issues, but noted it is not something the
Planning Commission can regulate as part of this application. It has been noted and
needs to be addressed. Commissioner Morris stated as part of a plan review the
Commission shouldn’t approve a plan where the proper access, easements or formal
permissions haven’t been obtained. He said the site plan should be adjusted if the two
parties don’t enter into a formal agreement.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat subject to conditions included by staff and the
condition that the site plan not be approved unless legal documents or agreements are
made between the two property owners for the use of the abutting property owner’s land.
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that attention is
paid to pedestrian and vehicle safety on Joppa and Sunset Avenues relative to the
increased use of this site.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
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 on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. 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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2012
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.
4. Other Business
A. Ms. McMonigal asked if Commissioners would be available to meet with the City
Council at the May 14th Council Study Session.
B . Commissioner Morris asked about rescheduling the study session which was
postponed on March 7th.
Ms. McMonigal responded that a study session could be held on April 18th after
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Morris recommended that single family home demolition
for the expansion of other uses be a study session item. He suggested that
questions for petitioners could be formulated. It was also suggested that this topic
could be considered with the City Council when the Planning Commission meets
with them on May 14th.
5. Communications: None
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4k
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 April 7 through April 27, 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
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
90.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
90.00
10.24-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS3D SPECIALTIES INC
159.15ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
148.91
885.73FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
885.73
984.00SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
984.00
85.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
50.42PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
572.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
793.41BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,501.55
73.40-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEA.M.E. CONSTRUCTION CORP
1,468.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,394.60
226.21SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
226.21
7,307.20GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABM JANITORIAL SERVICES
7,307.20
773.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
773.00
9,624.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAE2S
1,246.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
10,870.00
118.32OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
118.32
354.60ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESALL STAR SPORTS
682.11YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 2
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,086.71
206.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
206.50
32.08FINANCE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESAMERICAN EXPRESS
32.08
375.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEAMERICAN MASONRY RESTORATION
7,500.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
7,125.00
78.85POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.85
275.65PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
275.65
59.12GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
146.39PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
275.12PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
174.24PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
78.70ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
200.70VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
92.73WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
181.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
92.73SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
15.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,316.18
937.70SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
937.70
401.55INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
1,650.99FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,052.54
397.60WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATANDERSON, SCOTT
397.60
878.26GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
878.26
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 3
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
857.21GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
857.21
57.67OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
57.67
295.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSASSOCIATION OF EQUIPMENT MGMT
295.00
274.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTAT&T MOBILITY
274.80
64.59CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEATOMIC RECYCLING
64.58VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
64.58SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
193.75
1,999.18WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,999.18
65.79GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
65.79
344.67CABLE TV G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAVI SYSTEMS INC
344.67
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBALSTER, JOSEPH
1,000.00
1,319.50HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
1,319.50
224.25PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARNUM GATE SERVICES INC
224.25
705.81UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSBASICH INC, MICHAEL
705.81
600.00DARE PROGRAM TRAININGBCA CJTE
600.00
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 4
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEBCA MNJIS SECTION
510.00
74.55-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBEACON ATHLETICS
1,158.93PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,084.38
8,334.53PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBEBERGS LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
8,334.53
1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
1,400.00
100.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
100.00
131.13INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
131.13
180.16PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBOHN WELDING INC
180.16
855.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LANDBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,156.90GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
2,012.40
12,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBRE/COH MN LLC
12,000.00
45.85-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEBREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC
917.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
871.15
903.66HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
903.66
103.13-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBROOKSIDE MOBILE
1,603.13PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,500.00
81.23PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
81.23
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 5
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,689.57ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
45.00ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
293.75EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
495.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
30.00SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
135.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
6,688.32
10,479.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICAMPBELLS SIGNATURE LANDSCAPES
10,479.00
515.13IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
515.13
77.65TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
77.65
1,432.05FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
748.81PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
73.69WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
101.10NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
4,153.98WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
151.39REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
165.45SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
56.39SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
6,882.86
3,606.28FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
4,112.40ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
7,718.68
175.92IT G & A TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
39.18E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
200.00E-911 PROGRAM REPAIRS
415.10
195.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCHUX SCREEN PRINTING
195.00
64.79FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
64.79
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 6
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
155.66-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
306.26ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
704.22ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
237.23ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
25.26HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
250.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
95.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,950.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
47.23HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
26.80IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
104.93IT G & A TELEPHONE
28.75ASSESSING G & A POSTAGE
111.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
4.97ASSESSING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
36.50FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
475.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
38.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
12.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
158.97GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
142.45POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
324.26POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
60.00POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
54.72DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
177.55ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
738.00E-911 PROGRAM TRAINING
8.88OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
99.34OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
10.29OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,881.43OPERATIONSTRAINING
79.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A TRAINING
77.22ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
494.38ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
23.65PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
102.32-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
105.18ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.40ORGANIZED REC G & A POSTAGE
26.93ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
48.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
106.52HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,165.28PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
610.11ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 7
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
444.14WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
46.09WESTWOOD G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
38.58REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL GENERAL SUPPLIES
239.21BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7.27VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
557.84VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
1,018.04PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
879.87GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
9.62TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING EXPENSE
1,219.17TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
360.00TV PRODUCTION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
3,020.08GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
6.57-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
102.07WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
55.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
18,582.14
16,192.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSCLEARWATER RECREATION
16,192.00
166.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
4.51BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
171.46
195.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICONSTRUCTION BULLETIN
195.00
308.10UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSCONTRACTING SOLUTIONS INC
308.10
3.06-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCOOKE JP CO
47.56PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
44.50
2,549.69-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGECROSSROAD CONSTRUCTION INC
50,993.71GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
48,444.02
2,590.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE I
2,590.00
9,849.60WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 8
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9,849.60
206.61GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
206.61
2,450.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDALSIN, JOHN & SONS INC
2,450.00
240.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESDE PAUL LETTERING
240.00
30.94ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSDELEGARD TOOL CO
30.94
18.64-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDELTA TRAK INC
289.83INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
271.19
10,008.73EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENTDEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEV
10,008.73
3,708.25INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
3,708.25
291.05ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
291.05
319.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
16,357.03PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
16,676.03
15,886.34GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDLR GROUP KKE
15,886.34
22,586.55SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
377.55HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
22,964.10
3,427.27ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESECOLAB INC
3,427.27
525.00ESCROWSEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 9
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
828.75GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
390.00WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,743.75
200.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELECTRIC PUMP INC
200.00
500.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELIOT VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
500.00
956.23PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
61.51-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
894.72
761.44PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
761.44
8.72-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
135.62INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
126.90
336.00DAILY ADMISSION ADVERTISINGENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS
336.00
61.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
61.06
2,365.14STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERESCH CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC
2,365.14
5,372.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
5,372.00
4,119.91TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTESRI
4,119.91
35,625.87SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
35,625.87
618.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
33.58PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
651.67
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 10
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1.66GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
17.64STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
19.30
59.55POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
69.45REILLY BUDGET POSTAGE
129.00
458.37WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
458.37
327.27ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
327.27
1,506.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
1,506.00
52.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
52.26
367.00-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSFORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC
5,705.14REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,338.14
70.80REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFORMO, GERALD
70.80
543.90GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHERGENEREUX FINE WOOD PRODUCTS
543.90
125.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INC
125.00
4,312.39EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
4,312.39
526.85WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
526.85
40.77GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
176.95ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 11
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
30.49AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
566.42GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
814.63
1,343.26WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
3,396.56SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,221.12SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
576.48SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
820.42SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,357.84
367.06IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
367.06
78.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGGROTH SEWER & WATER
78.00
448.56EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
448.56
5,235.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHALLBERG ENGINEERING INC
5,235.50
66.60PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHANSEN, SHANNON
66.60
850.80WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHARTFIEL AUTOMATION
850.80
10,057.79WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
10,057.79
1,000.35PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
1,000.35
69.60INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALHEALY, CHAD
69.60
815.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEHENKEMEYER PAINTING & FLOOR CO
16,300.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
15,485.00
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 12
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
175.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS POLICE
175.00
393.00POLICE G & A REPAIRSHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
832.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,721.00
137.50ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
137.50
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
7,244.48POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
830.71SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
139.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
54.98PARK IMPROVEMENT G & A MISC EXPENSE
8,803.61
20.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
20.00
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHIGHLAND RENTAL
1,000.00
163.64GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
163.64
331.80GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
83.20ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
98.29ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
36.17ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
17.04DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
42.48DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
64.03RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
397.46PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
27.91PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.78PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
147.51BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
673.24SSD 1 G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.11SSD 2 G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.11SSD 3 G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 13
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
21.39WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
36.21WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7.51SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.79SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
37.80STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
2,357.83
8.30WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
8.30
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHRGREEN
600.00
42.41PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
31.02WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
73.43
653.87PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
653.87
1,595.20EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,595.20
45.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIATN
45.00
594.63WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
594.63SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
594.62SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
594.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,378.50
555.28PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
189.39WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
135.76WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
880.43
566.44TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
566.44
2,578.54IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,578.54
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 14
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
332.38PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINTL SECURITY PRODUCTS
332.38
444.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
569.02GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,013.44
42.00WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESISD #283
42.00
35.64PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
4.32IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.29GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
47.25
795.99PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
795.99
6,812.41PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
239.20TREE MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
7,051.61
80.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER
80.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
2,424.45HOUSING REHAB G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKERASOTES THEATRES
2,424.45
631.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEKLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC
631.70
420.81HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEKRUSE, JENNIFER
420.81
103.06HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLELAKE FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
103.06
585.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSLARSCO INC
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 15
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
213.87WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
798.87
1,092.77SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
274.11BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
257.63MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,624.51
215.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCELAUKKONEN, KAREN
215.00
10,218.46TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
10,218.46
2,268.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,268.00
6,996.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
6,996.00
250.00ORGANIZED REC G & A PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCELEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
15,030.68UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
15,280.68
247.65INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
247.65
1,280.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLEXIS NEXIS OCC HEALTH SOLUTIO
1,280.00
44.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
44.40
8,792.75PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
8,792.75
36.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALLYDEN, MICHAEL
36.00
1,917.98FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESM-R SIGN CO INC
1,917.98
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 16
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
480.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMAAO
480.00
159.20INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
159.20
857.79GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMACHINE ACCESSORIES CORP
857.79
230.72PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
230.72
13,363.05-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEMAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC
267,261.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
253,897.95
522.40SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
522.40
769.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMAPLE GROVE PRINTING
769.50
100.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMCCROSSAN INC, C S
100.00
18.87HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMECKLE, JODIE
18.87
135.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMEHA
135.00
76.46PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
408.04PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
133.96WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
238.47BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
100.02WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
110.16WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
1,067.11
1,545.30SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETHODIST HOSPITAL
1,545.30
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 17
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
50.98PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
50.98
69.29PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMETRO FIRE INC
69.29
1,019.70POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMETRO SALES INC
1,019.70
440.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
440.00
4,682.70INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
4,682.70
5,252.33CRACK SEALING PROJECTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDSTATES EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY
5,252.33
1,915.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
1,915.00
501.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
501.00
1,800.00OPERATIONSTRAININGMINNESOTA FIRE SVC CERT BD
1,800.00
200.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAININGMINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC
200.00
430.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF ASSES
430.00
210.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA STATE FIRE MARSHAL
210.00
443.49PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
443.49
73.78PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC
73.78
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 18
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
479.14PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
479.14
65.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMUNICIPALS
65.00
105.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGENAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SE
2,100.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,995.00
115.68SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
853.81PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
77.12PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
129.10ICE RESURFACER GENERAL SUPPLIES
770.72GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.82WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,975.25
1,662.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC
1,748.25SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
453.75SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
645.75SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,509.75
415.16GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESNEP CORP
415.16
112.64ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
160.37HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
574.01RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
108.95ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
160.58FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
368.24EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
1,445.12POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
411.13OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
109.06INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
431.52ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
539.80PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
169.71PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
492.81ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
376.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
103.32ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 19
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
327.70WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
99.99REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
164.07VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
412.70WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
232.23SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
17.77SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
599.63TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
7,417.41
400.00FACILITY ROOM RENTAL RENT REVENUENIRAULA, UTTAM
400.00
14,047.42SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNORTH AMERICAN SALT CO
14,047.42
857.65TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTNORTH CENTRAL REFORESTATION IN
857.65
77.55PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNOVATECH LIGHTING SYSTEMS INC
4.99-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
72.56
425.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
425.51
15,291.75COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
15,291.75
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
74.46ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
27.47HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
132.35SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
78.23GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
273.25POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
301.94POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
199.85OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
32.58INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
251.95PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.50HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,376.58
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 20
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,081.60INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
3,081.60
420.20SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
420.20
27.08COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A MEETING EXPENSEOLSON, MARNEY
27.08
1,128.60-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEOLYMPUS LOCKERS & STORAGE PROD
22,572.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
21,443.40
106.72PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
192.22
209.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEOVERHEAD DOOR CO
4,180.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
3,971.00
49.95INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
49.95
116.87PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPARK JEEP
116.87
193.80INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
193.80
164.83GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESPARTSMASTER
164.83
300.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PETTYPETTY CASH
6.40POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
30.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
25.00DWI ENFORCEMENT LICENSES
19.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LICENSES
8.70PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
6.62PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 21
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
122.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
11.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.05WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4.82SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
36.50SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
23.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
610.36
187.97INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESPOLK, MARLA
466.99INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
654.96
2,578.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
2,578.05
363.10PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP.COM INC
363.10
1,350.00POLICE G & A LICENSESPOST BOARD
1,350.00
620.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
620.10
1,299.60TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
1,299.60
144.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
144.00
120.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRIVATE UNDERGROUND
120.00
4,332.15WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
4,332.15
40.61ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESR & R SPECIALTIES
40.61
2.06-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRAGAN COMMUNICATIONS INC
32.01OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 22
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
29.95
1,495.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSREADY WATT ELECTRIC
1,495.00
40.20POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
40.20
146.28PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESREINDERS INC
146.28
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWRIBNICK, JEROME
2,500.00
2,201.44WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
2,201.44
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWROLLOFF, NITTI
2,500.00
20.31PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYROSENBAUER MINNESOTA LLC
1.31-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
19.00
182.64VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
182.64
20.66ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSESAM'S CLUB
842.20HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
109.22CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
972.08
322.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSANDUM, KATHERINE
322.00
54.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSAURER, MARTI
54.00
237.95BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSAVITT BROS INC
237.95
12.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 23
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12.00
113.05INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
113.05
67.15ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
67.15
2,366.40FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHRAMM, HOLLY
2,366.40
5,310.10PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
32,826.72CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
38,136.82
224.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSSGC HORIZON LLC
224.00
52.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
52.89
2,335.86PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
2,335.86
37,157.92TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTSHI INTERNATIONAL CORP
37,157.92
10.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT
10.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
53.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
20.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
93.00
300.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIR LINES-A-LOT
300.00
1,345.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,345.92
3,853.38POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTSLR15 RIFLES INC
3,853.38
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 24
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
633.42OPERATIONSTRAININGSMITH, TIM
633.42
29,670.10CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S PREPAID EXPENSESSPECTRA LOGIC CORP
4,812.09TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
34,482.19
1,566.00IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,566.00
9.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSPS COMPANIES INC
520.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
529.60
31,616.35UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSST CROIX REC CO
31,616.35
850.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGEST PAUL LINOLEUM & CARPET CO
17,000.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
16,150.00
235.05PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESST PAUL, CITY OF
235.05
56.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEINER, CHARLES
56.00
792.20PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSTEVENS ENGINEERS INC
792.20
42.74POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
2,171.21ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,213.95
450.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
15,310.14REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15,760.14
1,044.62ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
1,044.62
3.31-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUNDBERG CO, CE
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 25
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
51.50GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
48.19
28.38ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
28.38
14,977.73GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
14,977.73
215.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCETERRY, SCOTT
215.00
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
70.77ENGINEERING 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
16.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.60HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.25WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,965.08EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,874.66
12.68-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTHERMOWORKS INC
197.07INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
184.39
989.25-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGETHURNBECK STEEL FABRICATION IN
19,785.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 26
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
18,795.75
745.66BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
745.66
61,308.21GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITIERNEY BROTHERS INC
61,308.21
1,131.55INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTILTON, JOHN
1,131.55
1,176.19ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
1,176.19
1,795.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
1,795.00
674.26CRACK SEALING PROJECTS EQUIPMENT PARTSTRI STATE BOBCAT
717.84PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
1,392.10
1,755.14HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLETRIANGLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
1,755.14
995.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTRUSIGHT
995.00
310.82-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTURBO TECHNOLOGIES INC
2,159.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,603.13PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,068.75BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
4,520.95
210.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS
210.80
67.14PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
67.14
160.31TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY SEED CO
433.91BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
594.22
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 27
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
64.00-GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGETWIN CITY TILE & MARBLE CO
1,280.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,216.00
166.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTUHL CO INC
166.00
225.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSULI-THE URBRAN LAND INSTITUTE
225.00
822.00SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
938.12SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,645.12PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
496.96RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,479.37COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
8,381.57
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
81.23PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYUNITED TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
5.23-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
76.00
240.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
240.00
160.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
160.00
582.36OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
582.36
153.95HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
153.95
4,133.10WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
4,133.10
177.60ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
177.60
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 28
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
944.92ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
432.20WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,377.12
4,535.63-SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEVISU-SEWER INC
90,712.50CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
86,176.87
5,112.11SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELSWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
60,108.15SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
25,123.59SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
29,873.67SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
120,217.52
970.27WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
970.27
111.95CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
111.95
1,464.54AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWAVS INC
1,464.54
90.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
120.00SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
210.00
5,969.86SOFTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESWESTWOOD SPORTS
5,969.86
359.01GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWINDSCHITL, MARK
359.01
114.89WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
114.89
12,474.62FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.98OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
20,559.97PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,277.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
23.47BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 29
5/2/2012CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:49:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
4/27/2012 -4/7/2012
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
43.03WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
405.22WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
13,335.42ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,826.97GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
20,633.32WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,839.74REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,063.65SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,110.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
87.10OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
79,704.05
75,340.78PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZAMBONI & CO INC, FRANK J
4,846.48-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
70,494.30
40.66PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
40.66PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
85.25BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.66VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.65WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
247.88
118.82ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
114.53TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
233.35
Report Totals 1,545,446.26
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims 30
Meeting Date: May 7, 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:
Gambling Premise Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has provided the following two options for council consideration:
Option 1 - Motion to adopt Resolution approving issuance of a premises permit for lawful
gambling to be conducted by Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc. at Toby Keith’s I
Love This Bar & Grill, 1623 Park Place Blvd.
Option 2 - Motion to adopt Resolution denying issuance of a premises permit for lawful
gambling to be conducted by Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc. at Toby Keith’s I
Love This Bar & Grill, 1623 Park Place Blvd.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to take action on the premise permit for lawful gambling to be conducted by
Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc. at Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill, 1623
Park Place Boulevard?
BACKGROUND:
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association has submitted an application for a premises permit
to conduct lawful gambling in the form of pull-tabs inside Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill
located at 1623 Park Place Boulevard in St. Louis Park. The Hopkins Raspberry Festival
Association is a registered non-profit corporation with Minnesota Secretary of State and is listed
in good standing as of 2012. The officers are Charles Yunker, CEO; Leigh Ann Drinkwine,
Treasurer; and Sue Normandin, Gambling Manager.
At the March 26, 2012 Study Session, Council received and reviewed a written report regarding
the gambling permit application and the premises location. At the April 23, 2012 Study Session,
Council discussed the application and concerns with the premises establishment not being in
compliance with city code liquor licensing requirements.
CRGE Minneapolis LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill has authorized a lease
agreement with Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association for use of their space to conduct lawful
gambling. The premises establishment is currently not in compliance with City Code Ordinance
Sec. 3-70 (g) requiring at least 50% of gross receipts attributable to the sale of food. On
February 21, 2012 the Council approved the renewal of the liquor license and placed Toby
Keith’s on a 6 month probationary status through August 31, 2012. The licensee has been on a
probationary status since March of 2011.
The Hopkins Raspberry Festival currently operates pull tab operations at McCoy’s Public House,
3801 Grand Way in St. Louis Park and in Hopkins at the Wild Boar, 1022 Main Street. This
organization previously operated in St. Louis Park since April of 2002 at Al’s Bar which closed
in July 2009, then relocated to Laredo’s at 4656 Excelsior Blvd. which also closed.
The Association helps to support the Hopkins Raspberry Festival and St. Louis Park Parktacular,
who both depend on charitable gambling funds, along with educational scholarships and
miscellaneous donations.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Gambling Premise for Permit Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
State Gambling Board Authority
Gambling premises permits are issued and regulated by the State Gambling Board. Licenses
issued are perpetual and valid unless suspended or revoked by the Board, terminated by the
organization, or if the license lapses. A license is considered lapsed if the organization does any
of the following (MN Statute 349.16):
• Failed to conduct and report any gambling sales activity within seven months from
the date of the last gambling activity.
• Failed to have a gambling manager as required.
• Failed to pay annual license and permit fees.
• Surrenders, withdraws, or otherwise terminates the license.
Findings from Police Background Investigation
The Police Department conducted a background investigation on the organization, its officers
and related personnel. In reviewing the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association with the State
Gambling Board, violations were discovered and enforced by a consent order. The state
violations are related to the financial and documentation aspects of the operation and no
compliance issues are sited regarding improper sales to minors or game fixing. If the penalty
terms are not met within the time periods, the license may be suspended or revoked by the State.
The Gambling Control Board has indicated the Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association is
considered an active licensee (able to conduct lawful gambling) and remains in good standing at
this time. Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association admitted to all allegations. The violations,
penalties and status of the consent order are as follows:
State Violations Consent Order Penalty Terms
Status of Penalty Terms
Failed to make deposits of
gambling receipts within 4
days of game closed
(MN Stat. §349.19 subd 2)
Fine of $1,000 by March 14 State fine paid
Corrective action plan by March 14 Proper documentation
received, reviewed and
accepted
Documentation confirming no part
of penalty fine is paid out of gross
receipts from gambling by April 13
Failed to complete and file
required annual audit for
fiscal years 2008-2010.
(MN Stat. §297E.06, subd.
4, and 349.19, subd. 9)
Must file annual audit for fiscal
years 2008-2010 with Dept. of Rev.
by March 1
Received, reviewed, and
accepted by Dept. of Rev.
3 organization committee members
shall attend a 2 day gambling
manager seminar and pass an open
book test by May 13
* 3 committee members are
registered for the May 9-10
gambling seminar.
* Failure to meet the last term of gambling seminar attendance will result in a license suspension
by the state.
St. Louis Park City Code Requirements Chapter 15 - GAMBLING
Sec. 15-6. States that the applicant shall fully cooperate with the city officials in supplying all
required and necessary information when applying for a premises permit. City Council shall
determine whether the organization meets the criteria relating to the location of lawful gambling
activities and all other criteria necessary to approve a premises permit. Each pending application
for a premises permit shall be approved or disapproved by resolution of the City Council.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Gambling Premise for Permit Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Sec. 15-7. Location criteria for premises permits.
(a) Gambling in the city may be conducted only at the following locations:
(1) In the licensed organization's hall where it has its regular meetings;
(2) In licensed on-sale liquor, wine and beer establishments;
(3) Raffle permits, when required, are exempt from the location restrictions set forth in this
section.
(4) No location shall be approved unless it complies with the applicable zoning, building, fire
and health codes of the city and other regulations contained in this chapter.
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of Proceeds
Gambling organizations must contribute 10% of net profits from each site where lawful
gambling is conducted within the city to a fund administered and regulated by the city.
Organizations are exempt if either they expend 100% within St. Louis Park or conduct gambling
on a premises owned and operated by a nonprofit organization. Organizations must also expend
90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures within the trade area of St. Louis Park which
includes Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Golden Valley.
Organizations must submit monthly state gambling reports. Although the State Gambling
Control Board regulates gambling and reporting, city staff has had prior difficulties in receiving
copies of the Hopkins Raspberry Festival’s gambling reports on a timely basis. If the Council
choses to approve the application, staff would recommend that it include a condition that all
ordinance requirements continue to be met and that required gambling reports are submitted to
the City Clerk’s office on a timely basis. Violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor, and the
city could prosecute or request the Gambling Control Board to suspend or revoke the premises
permit under Minnesota Rule 7865.
The current licensed gambling establishments in St. Louis Park are as follows:
Community Charities operates at:
• American Legion Post 282, 5605 W. 36th St
• Park Tavern, 3401 Louisiana Ave.
• Texa Tonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Assoc. operates at:
Bunny’s Bar & Grill, 5916 Excelsior Blvd.
Hopkins Raspberry Festival operates at:
McCoy’s Public House, 3801 Grand Way
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
City Code Section 15-9 requires organizations to pay the city a tax of 3% of the gross receipts
less prizes, or an annual amount of $3,000, whichever is less.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Option 1 Resolution of Approval
Option 2 Resolution of Denial
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Gambling Premise for Permit Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Option 1
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY
HOPKINS RASPBERRY FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
AT TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR & GRILL
1623 PARK PLACE BLVD.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 15
provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of
St. Louis Park must expend 90 percent (90%) of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes
conducted or located within the trade area; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of
St. Louis Park shall contribute an amount equal to 10 percent (10%) of the organization’s net profits
derived from each individual site to a fund administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by
the city for lawful purposes authorized under Minnesota Statute; and
WHEREAS, organizations that either expend 100 percent of their lawful purpose
expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park or conduct the lawful gambling activity on a premises
owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation are exempt from making the 10 percent contribution
to the city; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of
St. Louis Park shall pay to the city on a prorated monthly basis a local gambling tax in the annual
amount of $3,000 per premises or three percent (3%) of the gross receipts from all lawful gambling
less prizes actually paid out , whichever is less; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization is required to submit monthly gambling reports to the
City Clerk’s office on a timely basis; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it
has first obtained from the State Gambling Control Board a premises permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the State Gambling Control Board may not issue a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed
above meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby
approved.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Gambling Premise for Permit Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Option 2
Proposed RESOLUTION NO. 12-_______
RESOLUTION DENYING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY
HOPKINS RASPBERRY FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
AT TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR & GRILL
1623 PARK PLACE BLVD.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 15 provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City
must meet location criteria for premises permits as required by City Code Section 15-7; and
WHEREAS, Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association has made application to conduct
lawful gambling at a liquor licensed premises, Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill located at
1623 Park Place Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, Section 15-7 of the City Code provides in part that gambling in the City
may be conducted in licensed on-sale liquor, wine and beer establishments but only if the
location complies with the applicable zoning, building, fire and health codes of the city and other
regulations contained in this chapter; and
WHEREAS, Toby Keith’s is currently on probation and not in compliance with City
Code Section 3-70 (g) requirement of at least 50 percent of gross receipts attributable to the sale
of food; and
WHEREAS, Section 15-7 of the City Code only authorizes the issuance of a premises
permit at Toby Keith’s because it has an on-sale liquor license and Toby Keith’s has a
probationary license which it may lose because of non-compliance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the premises are not in compliance with the City’s liquor ordinance
regulations which protect the health and welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the conduct of lawful gambling on the Toby Keith’s premises has the
potential to increase bar-related activity and further decrease the percentage of food sales; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless
it has first obtained from the State Gambling Control Board a premises permit for the site.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that it is not in the
interest of the welfare of the City or its residents to approve the premises permit, and the
application is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the
applicant may reapply at this premises location for council consideration when the licensee is no
longer on probationary status and in compliance with city code regulations.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Gambling Premise for Permit Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8E
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:
Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and Resolution approving
Preliminary/Final Plat to allow construction of a synagogue at 2950 Joppa Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the applicant meet the requirements needed for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
Preliminary/Final Plat, to allow construction of a synagogue at 2950 Joppa Avenue South?
BACKGROUND:
Requested are a Conditional Use Permit and a Preliminary/Final Plat to allow for construction of
a new synagogue at 2950 Joppa Avenue South. The synagogue would replace an existing single
family home. The proposed synagogue would be just over 5,000 square feet in size and includes
a 19-space parking lot to the north of the building. Religious institutions are permitted only
through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-4 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District.
Conditional Use Permits are a mechanism by which the City Council may impose additional
conditions on uses with specific characteristics that require a higher level of review than a
permitted use. Additional conditions may be warranted under specific circumstances such as a
need to maintain conformity with the Comprehensive Plan or to achieve the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. While a permitted use may simply obtain a building permit to move forward,
conditional uses must undergo review by the Planning Commission and City Council, including
a public hearing held as part of the Planning Commission meeting. Upon affirmation by the City
Council that the conditions for the use are met, the applicant may go forward to obtain a building
permit.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the Darchei
Noam synagogue development at its April 4th, 2012 meeting. Further discussion of the Planning
Commission meeting, including comments from the Commission and a nearby resident, are
included in the report. The minutes of the April 4th Planning Commission meeting are included
as an attachment.
Project Background:
Darchei Noam identified the site at 2950 Joppa Avenue South for a potential synagogue and
began working with Staff in 2011. The 30,342 square foot site (0.69 acres) is currently occupied
by one single family home. The lot is partially wooded, although much of the existing vegetation
consists of buckthorn, cottonwood, and other trees that are not considered significant by the City.
The site is adjacent to Minnetonka Boulevard to the south, Joppa Avenue to the east, and multi-
family apartment buildings to the north and west.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
To construct the synagogue, the single family home and some of the vegetation would be
removed. There would be little grading required on the site, as the topography is already well
situated for the proposed building. The synagogue would be constructed at the same elevation as
the existing home; the lot slopes upward toward Minnetonka Boulevard, so the existing slope
and a portion of the vegetation in that location would be retained.
Zoning and Conditional Use Permit Review:
In addition to the typical Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R-4 Zoning District, a CUP is
required. The purpose of the CUP requirement, adopted by the City Council in 2009, is to ensure
compatibility with the neighborhood.
CUP Requirements
The CUP requirement for “Religious Institutions” in the R-4 Zoning District requires the
applicant to meet the following conditions:
• Buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district.
• An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
• Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R
district.
• Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating
significant traffic on local residential streets.
The proposed synagogue meets or exceeds the CUP requirements. The building and outdoor
play areas are located a sufficient distance from all adjacent housing. The off-street passenger
loading area is located within the parking lot, located immediately north of the building. Access
to the site is provided via Joppa Avenue South and Minnetonka Boulevard, ensuring that any
non-local traffic does not need to travel through the Fern Hill neighborhood to reach the site.
R-4 District Zoning Analysis
The standard R-4 zoning requirements applicable to the Darchei Noam synagogue include
conformity with the following Zoning Ordinance items:
• Off-street parking
• Landscaping & Tree replacement
• Architectural materials
• Setbacks
• Pedestrian safety
Lot Size:
The lot at 2950 Joppa Avenue South is over 30,000 square feet, exceeding the 8,000 square foot
minimum lot size for the R-4 district.
Off-Street Parking:
Parking requirements for multi-use facilities such as religious institutions are set based on the
largest level of activity that may occur on the site. In this case, the parking requirement is based
on the number of seats in the sanctuary space within the synagogue. The total parking
requirement is one parking space per three seats. The sanctuary space has 90 total seats, for a
parking requirement of 30 off-street spaces.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Though there are other activities that will take place in the synagogue, no activities will take
place concurrently with rabbinical services within the sanctuary. The building will include space
for classroom instruction, a small library space, and a kitchen area attached to a small social hall
that can be utilized following services.
Reductions in the total required parking spaces are permitted under Section 36-361 (d),
“Reductions.” The requested reductions include the use of immediately adjacent on-street
parking, and a 10% reduction in the overall parking requirement due to the proximity of transit
service along Minnetonka Boulevard. The use of the transit reduction reduces the total
requirement by three spaces to a total of 27 required spaces. Counting the adjacent on-street
parking reduces the required off-street parking to 19 spaces.
To accommodate the total parking requirement, the applicant is building a 19 space parking lot
on-site, directly to the north of the proposed building, and utilizing eight available on-street
parking spaces. The on-street parking is counted only along the west side of Joppa Avenue
South. The provision of 27 total spaces (19 off-street and 8 on-street) meets the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Some concerns have been raised regarding parking in the area along Joppa Avenue South during
the Friday evening / Saturday time period. There is an existing synagogue located on the east
side of Joppa (across the street from the 2950 Joppa site) that also uses on-street parking along
Joppa and Sunset Boulevard. The City Engineer and Police Department reviewed these concerns
and noted that there have not been any complaints received by City Staff in regard to excessive
or unusual on-street parking in the area. Public on-street parking is available to residents,
businesses, employees, or persons observing religious rites and practices.
During the Planning Commission meeting, the issue of on-street parking during the Friday
evening / Saturday time period was discussed extensively. The owner of the apartment building
to the west and one neighbor raised concerns about on-street parking. To date, Staff has
observed the on-street parking during the Friday evening / Saturday time period twice, once the
weekend of March 30th, and again the weekend of April 28th. On-street parking was similar on
both occasions; approximately 18-20 cars were parked along Joppa south of Sunset, with space
for approximately another 10-12 cars on-street. The on-street parking may be generated by the
B’nai Ysrael synagogue, although this was not verified. The B’nai Ysrael synagogue is located
across the street from the 2950 Joppa Avenue site at Joppa and Sunset.
The applicant has provided a map that depicts where all congregants live. It indicates that the
new synagogue at 2950 Joppa will be in closer proximity to the congregants than the location
currently being used for services (St. George’s Church at Minnetonka and Salem). At the
present time, the applicant has indicated that only 4-5 congregants park their cars at the
synagogue overnight during the Friday/Saturday timeframe. This would be expected to decline
in the proposed location, owing to its closer proximity to congregants’ homes.
Although the applicant meets the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant
has discussed the issue with the Torah Academy, located approximately 600 feet to the north of
the site. A letter from Torah Academy, attached, indicates that should overflow parking be
needed, Torah Academy will make their parking lot available. This type of shared parking
would provide additional protection from on-street parking over-flowing into the surrounding
residential neighborhood, should it provide needed. It would essentially make use of a parking
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
area that is otherwise underutilized during the peak parking times of Friday evening into
Saturday.
Bicycle Parking:
A total of four bicycle parking spaces are required. Ample space is available for installation of
the required bicycle parking spaces, which will be provided on the north side of the building in
close proximity to the primary building entrance.
Landscaping / Screening / Tree Replacement:
Landscaping for the site is provided through a combination of new trees, new shrubs, and a fence
along the northern property line. The proposed synagogue was also placed to retain as much
existing vegetation as possible.
The total landscaping requirement is based on the length of the perimeter (784 feet) of the site:
• Trees: 16 required; 35 provided.
• Shrubs: 94 required; 42 provided.
Although the number of proposed shrubs does not meet the total requirement, the number of
proposed trees substantially exceeds the requirement and outweighs the proposed lower number
of shrubs. In accordance with the provisions for “Alternative Landscaping,” when the proposed
landscape plan is deemed equivalent to the minimum requirements of the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, it can be allowed to go forward as presented. In this case, the number of proposed
trees exceeds the requirement and will provide for a site plan that is consistent with the character
of the Fern Hill neighborhood and can better accommodate the existing physical conditions of
the subject property.
During Planning Commission review of the proposed development, concerns were raised
regarding the location of the trees on the proposed planting plan. At that time, the applicant
intended to work cooperatively with the apartment building owner to the west (4310 Minnetonka
Boulevard) to add some trees to their site. Because the owner raised some concerns about the
location of some of the proposed plantings, the applicant has modified the landscaping plan to
move all proposed trees onto their own site. The applicant still intends to improve the screening
between 2950 Joppa and the apartments to the west, which will be accomplished through the
installation of a variety of new trees and shrubs. The screening will be an improvement over the
existing conditions on the site. The apartment building owner has submitted a letter reflecting
support of the proposed synagogue development, attached for review.
The tree replacement formula calls for the replacement of 36 caliper inches of trees on the site.
Consistent with the number of trees in the landscape plan, a total of 96.5 caliper inches of new
trees will be installed, exceeding the requirement. Tree replacement includes both coniferous and
deciduous trees planted throughout the site. The tree removal on the site will consist primarily of
trees listed on the City’s “prohibited species” list, including cottonwood and box elder.
Screening is required between parking lots and any adjacent residential properties. To meet this
requirement the applicant is proposing a six foot wood fence along the north property line. The
fence will address potential concerns about headlights or vehicle noise between the parking lot
and the residential apartment building to the north of the site.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Stormwater Management:
Stormwater management on the site will be accommodated through the use of several small rain
gardens. These rain gardens will be landscaped and maintained, and will be used during major
storm events to reduce the rate at which water
will flow downstream. The rain gardens will
also provide water quality improvements for
water exiting the site.
Architectural Materials:
Standards for the use of Class I materials are
proposed to be met through the use of stone,
brick, glass, and stucco. The proposed
building, pictured at right, will be designed to
face Joppa Avenue South. The south and east
faces of the building will be constructed predominately in brick and stone. The west face of the
building, which will be screened from the adjacent properties through a substantial vegetative
buffer, will be constructed primarily using concrete stucco. The proposed building exceeds the
Zoning Ordinance requirements for Class I materials.
Floor Area Ratio and building height:
The proposed synagogue will have a ground floor area ratio (GFAR) of 0.17. The maximum
GFAR in the R-4 Zoning District is 0.35, which is the total lot area (35%) covered by a building.
The one-story building has a proposed height of 20 feet, well below the maximum 40 foot height
allowed in the R-4 district. The building’s massing is consistent with other structures in the area
and will blend in well with the Fern Hill neighborhood.
Setbacks
Setbacks for the proposed building meet the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and are
consistent with what would be required of any other building in the R-4 Zoning District.
Pedestrian Safety
The Planning Commission made a recommendation that attention be paid to pedestrian safety on
Joppa and Sunset Avenues relative to the increased use of this site. There is a substantial amount
of walking associated with this use, and there are not sidewalks available in all locations
throughout the neighborhood. The applicants are constructing a sidewalk along Joppa Avenue
adjacent to their site. Completion of the sidewalk network in this area has not been identified as
a priority in the Sidewalks and Trails section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has considered the issue and provided a
letter to the City regarding implementation of safety measures, attached for review. To improve
safety for members of the congregation, Darchei Noam will provide reflective safety vests to
Yard Type Setback Requirement Setback Proposed
Front yard (south) 30’ > 100’
Side yard abutting a street (east) 15’ 15’
Side yard abutting a residential
property (west)
30’ 30’
Rear yard (north) 25’ > 100’
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
congregants walking home, with an emphasis on their use during the peak walking times of
Friday and Saturday nights.
Preliminary and Final Plat:
The Preliminary/Final Plat request is required because a small portion of the existing lot at 2950
Joppa Avenue South is unplatted. To comply with the requirements of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances, the applicant is platting the property; however, no changes to the site’s
boundaries or dimensions will occur.
Park dedication and trail dedication fees are not required in circumstances when an existing lot is
being platted solely for purposes of consolidating the underlying legal description of an existing
lot. Drainage and utility easements are provided around the perimeter of the proposed lots
consistent with requirements; additionally, the applicant will install a public sidewalk along
Joppa Avenue South.
Summary:
The proposed redevelopment of the site at 2950 Joppa Avenue South meets the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, including the Conditional Use Permit requirements for the construction of
a religious facility within a residential district. The proposed Preliminary & Final Plat
documents comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Approval of this CUP is consistent with the City’s Vision for creating strong neighborhoods with
community gathering places.
Attachments: Resolution – Approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Resolution – Approval of the Preliminary / Final Plat
Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2012
Letter from Torah Academy – Shared Parking
Map from Applicant – Congregant Locations
Letter from Applicant – Walking Safety
Letter from Adjacent Property Owner (Joppa Lane Apts.)
Project Location Map
Site Plan and Related Documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-166 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 2950 JOPPA AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Congregation Darchei Noam has made application to the City Council for a Conditional
Use Permit under Section 36-166 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
construction of a religious institution in a residential district within the R-4 Multi-Family
Residential District located at 2950 Joppa Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-
wit:
The South 319.25 feet of the East 66 feet of the South Half (S ½) of the Southwest
Quarter (SW ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section Thirty-one (31), Township
Twenty-nine (29), North Range Twenty-four (24); also
Lot 1, Block 1, McCarty’s 1st Addition to Fern Hill, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, including
all of the vacated alley in said Addition adjacent to said Lot 1, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-11-CUP) and the effect of the proposed religious institution on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the religious institution will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion
nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
religious institution is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 12-11-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit a religious institution at the location described is granted
based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
2. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
b. All necessary permits must be obtained.
c. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be
submitted and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and
erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities, public access points and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and
City policies.
b. To ensure construction of the landscaping, other required public
improvements, and the cleaning of public streets during construction, a
financial guarantee shall be provided in the amount of 125% of the cost of
the landscaping materials.
c. The planned installation of any mechanical equipment shall include means to
ensure it is fully screened from off-site view.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighborhood properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties.
f. 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.
g. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
5. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the following
shall be completed:
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors.
d. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that
all such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. To protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community, the painting of mechanical
equipment shall not be considered screening.
6. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within
48 hours.
7. To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety, the installation of any on-site traffic
calming measures not indicated on the official exhibits, including speed bumps, shall
require a major amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
8. The developer shall pay an administrative fine of $750.00 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit is required, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
DARCHEI NOAM ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Congregation Darchei Noam, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be
platted as Darchei Noam Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and
final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
The South 319.25 feet of the East 66 feet of the South Half (S ½) of the Southwest
Quarter (SW ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section Thirty-one (31), Township
Twenty-nine (29), North Range Twenty-four (24); also
Lot 1, Block 1, McCarty’s 1st Addition to Fern Hill, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, including
all of the vacated alley in said Addition adjacent to said Lot 1, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Darchei Noam Addition is hereby
approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City
plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota,
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and
Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. The Plat of Congregation Darchei Noam allows for the consolidation of the
underlying property to create one lot on the existing site at 2950 Joppa Avenue South.
b. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Official Exhibits.
c. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer shall submit financial security in the
form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1000 to insure that a Mylar
copy of the final plat is provided.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 4, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3. Public Hearings
A. Darchei Noam Synagogue
Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Location: 2950 Joppa Avenue South
Applicant: Congregation Darchei Noam
Case No.: 12-10-S and 12-11-CUP
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the request for
construction of a new religious institution in the R-4 District requires a conditional use
permit. A preliminary and final plat is required for the small un-platted portion of the lot.
The proposed synagogue is immediately adjacent to Minnetonka Blvd. and Joppa Ave.
He noted that the site is surrounded by apartment buildings to the west, an apartment
building to the north, a synagogue and retail to the east, and an apartment and an office
building to the south. He stated that extensive meetings have been held between the
applicant and staff.
Commissioner Robertson asked how much street parking is considered to be required
parking for the existing synagogue across the street.
Mr. Fulton responded that on-street parking was reviewed by both the City Engineer and
the Police Dept. who noted that there haven’t been any complaints about excessive or
unusual on-street parking in the area. Mr. Fulton said that on the weekend of March 30th
staff did some surveys of parking. He said between Friday evening and Saturday, there
were about 22 total cars parked on both sides of Joppa between Sunset and Minnetonka
Blvd. He stated there is capacity for about 30 cars. He said it appears that the street
should very easily be able to accommodate the eight parking spaces counted for Darchei
Noam. He noted it did not appear that the existing synagogue was utilizing the parking at
the retail establishment immediately to the south. There may be an opportunity to create
some sort of shared parking agreement. The city parking lot to the east was not being
fully utilized by the congregation. Mr. Fulton said it is important to take into account the
two similar uses and it appears there are opportunities to address other parking
availability if needed.
Commissioner Shapiro remarked that the existing synagogue is an orthodox congregation
and it’s unlikely that many of the 22 cars parked on the street were being used by
members of the synagogue.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was any discussion about moving the single family
home rather than demolishing it.
Mr. Fulton replied that issue has not been raised, and the applicant could answer that question.
Commissioner Carper asked about the gradient change on the lot.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Mr. Fulton stated that the parking lot will be roughly at grade. The synagogue will be
below the existing grade along Minnetonka Blvd.
Commissioner Carper asked about fencing and lighting at the back of the parking lot.
Mr. Fulton said the apartment building is set about 50 ft. from the property line to the
north. The applicant will construct a required fence adjacent to the parking lot. The
lighting will not be very tall and will probably be a single light so there won’t be much
spill over light. He said the applicant did provide a lighting plan which meets the standard
of the code.
Jay Isenberg, architect, said the applicant has been meeting with staff for six to nine
months.
Chair Roberts asked if either synagogue has a formal parking agreement with the owners
of the large parking lot across the street from the site.
Mr. Isenberg said there aren’t any formal agreements at this point because the applicant
has complied with the requirements of the CUP and the zoning. But, further discussions
on this can be held.
Jan Burke, a member of the Building Committee, spoke about the condition of the house
which will be removed. She said the house, built in 1900, is not in very good shape and
would not be worth moving.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Thomas Nelson, owner of Joppa Lane Apartments, 2888 Joppa Ave., thanked the
applicant for meeting with him regarding their plans. He said the applicant has done a
nice job. He said he is concerned, however, as this part of St. Louis Park continues to
improve, how many street spots are being allocated for how many purposes. Are these
parking spots being over-allocated? He recommended that parking be worked out in
advance of construction rather than later.
Mr. Nelson noted that some of the irrigation management and tree improvements in the
plans are actually on his property. He said there are no formal agreements with the
congregation as to the nature of those improvements. He wants to see the parcel
improved, and the use if compliant is fine, but nothing is firm or in place yet.
Mr. Nelson stated he would be in agreement to have improvements on his property if the
improvements are done in a way that adds value to his property, are appropriately
documented and agreed upon as to planting and maintenance, and if there is a
construction easement and insurance in place while the work is being done.
Mr. Isenberg said as soon as the applicant understood the gravity and issues involved in
the stormwater management and the existing conditions of the site they met with Mr.
Nelson to discuss a solution that worked for both parties. He said they haven’t resolved
everything but the best solution does involve improvements on the Nelson property.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
Mark Fredrickson, 2851 Joppa Ave. S., said he and his wife have lived at this address for
18 years. They are very happy that a new building will be constructed on the parcel. He
said they are concerned because only one car can pass through at a time when cars are
parked on both sides of Joppa Ave. on Friday night and Saturdays. Snow makes the
situation worse. He stated that he thinks there is a significant parking issue already, and
it needs to be addressed. Mr. Fredrickson said over the past weekend there was parking
on Sunset Blvd. and he has seen parking on both sides of Joppa Ave. pushed on to Sunset
Blvd. Mr. Fredrickson said his second concern regards the current sidewalk. He said all
weekend long people either stay on the sidewalk on the west side of the street until they
get to the sidewalk, and then cross into the street, or come in to the street from Fern Hill
Park across the parking lot and walk down the middle of the street. He said he’s
concerned about more foot traffic in the street on Joppa Ave., especially in the winter
months when it is more dangerous. He suggested it could be alleviated if there is a
continuing sidewalk from Torah Academy’s property.
Chair Kramer asked about safety and foot traffic.
Judy Shapiro, president, Darchei Noam congregation, said people do tend to walk in the
streets. She said people could be encouraged to wear reflective arm bands when they
leave the synagogue Friday and Saturday night.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Kramer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said if the street gets too constricted, the city could look at not
having street parking adjacent to the lot across the way. He said he didn’t see a need to
have street parking alongside the parking lot and that could alleviate the narrowness. He
said the applicant meets the requirement for trees even without the trees planted on the
neighbor’s property. Since the applicant is over the requirement and they are just trying
to improve that corner, he is comfortable with improvements on the neighbor’s property.
He spoke about the small gap in sidewalk that would be created and thought it could be
added to the City’s sidewalks and trails program.
Commissioner Morris said he recommends that staff and the applicant work closer with
the community on traffic and pedestrian safety issues, but noted it is not something the
Planning Commission can regulate as part of this application. It has been noted and
needs to be addressed. Commissioner Morris stated as part of a plan review the
Commission shouldn’t approve a plan where the proper access, easements or formal
permissions haven’t been obtained. He said the site plan should be adjusted if the two
parties don’t enter into a formal agreement.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat subject to conditions included by staff and the
condition that the site plan not be approved unless legal documents or agreements are
made between the two property owners for the use of the abutting property owner’s land.
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that attention is
paid to pedestrian and vehicle safety on Joppa and Sunset Avenues relative to the
increased use of this site.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 15
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 16
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 17
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 18
Darchei Noam Synagogue - 2950 Joppa Ave. S.CUP & Preliminary/Final Plat
April 4, 2012
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
200
Feet
R-4 R-1
C-2R-C C-2
C-1
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 19
( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE020102040881.2881.220 x 15PLAYAREA30 X 25LAWNAREAOWOWO W
O W
O W
OWOWS 89°52'17" E--106.00--N 00°09'49" E--286.25----106.00--S 89°52'17" E--286.25--N 00°09'49" EMinnetonka BoulevardJoppa AvenueBenchmark:Top of manhole 890.9( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE020102040881.2881.220 x 15PLAYAREA30 X 25LAWNAREAOWOWO W
O W
O W
OWOWS 89°52'17" E--106.00--N 00°09'49" E--286.25----106.00--S 89°52'17" E--286.25--N 00°09'49" EMinnetonka BoulevardJoppa AvenueBenchmark:Top of manhole 890.95,250 SF19 PARKING SPACESCUP - 51PATIOHANDICAP PARKINGSTALL, TYP.8 PARKING SPACESSIDEWALK LIGHTINGBOLLARD, TYP.PROPOSED BUILDING4" BITUMINOUS CURBNEW WATERSERVICESANITARY SEWERWATER MAINSANITARYSEWERCONNECTIONFRONT SETBACKREAR SETBACKYHD15' - 0"30' - 0"5' - 0"PARKING SETBACKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWPPPPPPPPSITE PLAN SYMBOL LEGENDEXISTING CONDITIONSCONGREGATION DARCHEI NOAM OWNS THE PROPERTY:2950 JOPPA AVE. S. = R4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)EXISTING TOTAL SITE AREA = 30,342.5 SF (0.697 ACRES)LOT DIMENSIONS =APPROX. 106' X 286'EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT =2,229 SFEXISTING PARKINGAND SIDEWALKS=968 SFTOTAL IMPERVIOUS=3,197 SFTOTAL PERVIOUS =27,145 SF% EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA = 12%STRUCTURE SETBACKS:R4 - MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALReligious InstitutionsFRONT SETBACK = 15 FEETREAR SETBACK = 30 FEETSIDE SETBACK = 30 FEETPLAY AREA SETBACK = 25 FEET(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-166. R-4 Multiple-Family Residence)MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:40'-0" HIGH, OR 3 STORIES(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-166. R-4 Multiple-Family Residence)SIZE OF PARKING SPACES AND AISLES:90 DEGREE PARKING STALL WIDTH = 8 FEET 6 INCHES STALL LENGTH = 20 FEET AISLE WIDTH = 24 FEET *Note: Stall length can be reduced by the amount of curb overhang up to a maximum of two feet.(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-240)PARKING SETBACKS:PARKING SETBACK = 5'-0"(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-240)MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES:WORSHIP CENTER SEATING = 901 Stall Per 3 Seats = 30 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED10% Reduction (1) = 27 PARKING SPACES19 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON-SITE8 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON-STREET(Institutional Uses)- Places of public assembly or religious institutions: One space per each three seats.(Reductions)- (1) Transit Service. Parking may be reduced by 10 percent for any parcel located within on-quartermile of a transit stop.- (2) On-Street Parking. Parking may be reduced on a one-for-one basis through the use of on-streetparking adjacent to the parcel.(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-361 (a)HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PARKING:* Determined by applicable regulations (state law).(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-361 (4)IBC Table 1106.1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES:26 to 50 Parking Spaces Provided = 2 SPACES REQUIRED2 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDEDPROPOSED CONDITIONSEXISTING TOTAL SITE AREA = 30,342 SF (.697 ACRES)LOT DIMENSIONS = APPROX. 106' X 286'PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT =5,250 SFPROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO = 0.17PROPOSED PARKINGAND SIDEWALKS=8,162 SFTOTAL IMPERVIOUS=13,412 SFTOTAL PERVIOUS =16,930 SF% PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 79%ZONINGPARKINGEXISTING LIGHT POLEACCESSIBLE PARKINGEXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDINGCONCRETE SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEPROPERTY LINEWATEROVERHEAD ELECTRICOHEUSE DISTRICT = R-4MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT = 6 FEETPERMANENT SIGNAGEMAXIMUM TOTAL AREA = 40 SQUARE FEETPROPOSED SIGNAGE = 18 SQUARE FEET(Per City of St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, Table 36-362A. SIGN REGULATIONS)(Adjustments to table 36-362A)In an R district, identification signs may be permitted for religious institutions based on thefollowing criteria:Size. The sign shall be proportional to the size of the facility, need for signage, street frontage, location, visibility, and development in the area. The maximum sign size shall not exceed 20 square feet per sign face on a local street, 40 square feet per sign face on a minor collector street, and 60 square feet per sign face on any other street frontage.Lighting. Sign shall be lighted by backlighting, internal lighting or indirect lighting.SIGN AREA AND HEIGHTYHDFIRE HYDRANTEXISTING POWER POLEPPVANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS WITH ISENBERG+ASSOCIATES - 669 Winnetka Avenue North - Suite #210 - Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857www.vanmanab.comCOPYRIGHTC2012CONGREGATION DARCHEI NOAM2950 Joppa Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 05, 2012SHEET3/5/2012 1:06:07 PMSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"CUP - 21ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANCUP-2City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final PlatPage 20
55 MEN35 WOMEN55 MEN35 WOMENDN61' - 0"27' - 4"46' - 0"UTILITY /STORAGEKITCHENCLASSROOMCLASSROOMMENWOMENLIBRARYVESTIBULELOBBYWORSHIPSOCIALCOATSENTRYTABLESCHAIRSCHAIRSCOATSCOATSCOATSBENCHHALLPATIOBENCHBENCHBOOKSSHELVESSHELVESBIMAHARKLINE OFSOFFITABOVEACOUSTICACCORDIONWALL102' - 7 3/4"B OO KS
BOOKS20' - 0"11' - 10"STROLLERS4CUP-43CUP-41CUP-42CUP-4LINE OFSOFFITABOVEDNUP34' - 8"19' - 9"MECHANICAL/ STORAGEVANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS WITH ISENBERG+ASSOCIATES - 669 Winnetka Avenue North - Suite #210 - Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857www.vanmanab.comCOPYRIGHTC2012CONGREGATION DARCHEI NOAM2950 Joppa Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 05, 2012SHEET3/5/2012 1:06:47 PMCUP-3NORTHMAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final PlatPage 21
T/ SLAB (ML)100' - 0"T/ SOCIAL PARAPET114' - 0"T/ WORSHIP PARAPET120' - 0"T/ NORTH PARAPET112' - 0"B/ CANOPY109' - 0"PREFINISHED METAL CANOPYSCULPTED MASONRY VENEERBRICK VENEERBRICK VENEERALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMSIGNAGE - 12" TALL LETTERST/ SLAB (ML)100' - 0"T/ SOCIAL PARAPET114' - 0"T/ WORSHIP PARAPET120' - 0"T/ NORTH PARAPET112' - 0"B/ CANOPY109' - 0"SCULPTED MASONRY VENEERALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMBRICK VENEERPREFINISHED METAL CANOPYT/ SLAB (ML)100' - 0"T/ SOCIAL PARAPET114' - 0"T/ WORSHIP PARAPET120' - 0"T/ NORTH PARAPET112' - 0"STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO FINISHCLERESTORY WINDOWST/ SLAB (ML)100' - 0"T/ SOCIAL PARAPET114' - 0"T/ WORSHIP PARAPET120' - 0"T/ NORTH PARAPET112' - 0"STUCCO FINISHSTUCCO FINISHPREFINISHED METAL CANOPYSCULPTED MASONRY VENEERALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEMBRICK VENEERVANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS WITH ISENBERG+ASSOCIATES - 669 Winnetka Avenue North - Suite #210 - Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857www.vanmanab.comCOPYRIGHTC2012CONGREGATION DARCHEI NOAM2950 Joppa Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MinnesotaMarch 05, 2012SHEET3/5/2012 1:07:39 PMSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"CUP - 41EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"CUP - 42NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"CUP - 43WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"CUP - 44SOUTH ELEVATIONCUP-4City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final PlatPage 22
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 23
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 24
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 25
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 26
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 27
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final PlatPage 28
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Darchei Noam Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat Page 29
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8c
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:
Project Report: Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue) - Project #2011-1100
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, establishing Improvement Project No.
2011-1100 approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for
Improvement Project No. 2011-1100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to proceed with this project?
BACKGROUND:
History
The Municipal State Aid (MSA) street system is a network of streets, designated by the City,
which are eligible for funding from gas tax proceeds for periodic maintenance and
reconstruction. MSA streets are typically those major streets which have higher volumes of
traffic and are required to be constructed to a higher standard.
During the past several years, staff identified the need to rehabilitate portions of the MSA street
system through the City’s Pavement Management Program. The Pavement Management
Program was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a
cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time.
Using the City’s pavement management software, staff obtains street condition ratings and
monitors their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-
effective treatments to extend pavement life.
The MSA system is analyzed at the same time as the rest of the residential street network as part
of the overall pavement management program. However, rather than maintaining MSA streets
on an area basis, like the residential street pavement management methodology, these streets are
identified for repair or reconstruction based on their current condition. Through the CIP process,
MSA projects are then programmed for major maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Proposed Project
The following State Aid street segments identified for major maintenance, rehabilitation or
reconstruction efforts in 2012 are:
Street Start Point End Point Repair/Rehab. Type
Louisiana Avenue Minnetonka
Boulevard
Bridge over BNSF
Railway
Mill and Overlay
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: Project Report: Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue) - Project #2011-1100
The Louisiana Avenue project involves pavement resurfacing by a mill and overlay process
where the top two (2) inches of pavement is ground off and then a new asphalt surface is paved.
The project also includes minor repairs on the concrete curb and sidewalk, minor storm sewer
repairs, and updates to the pedestrian curb ramps to meet current ADA standards. The project
construction is anticipated to last about one month. The project will be constructed under traffic.
Motorists will be guided through the work zone during periods of temporary lane closures.
The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for the Louisiana Avenue project.
Because MSA funds will be used to pay for this project, it is necessary to obtain Mn/DOT
approval of the plans. Our plans are currently being reviewed by Mn/DOT and we anticipate
receiving their approval by mid-May. Mn/DOT approval must be obtained prior to the opening
of bids in order to obtain MSA reimbursement for this work.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Area residents and neighborhood association leaders were invited to an open house to review the
preliminary plans for the proposed street construction work. Three (3) residents attended the
open house on April 26, 2012. Prior to the start of construction, letters will be mailed to the
adjacent property owners and tenants providing details of the work and project schedule. The
City’s website will also provide information on the proposed project.
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
can be met:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council May 7, 2012
• Advertise for bids Mid-May
• Bid Opening June 4, 2012
• Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract June 18, 2012
• Begin Construction Mid July 2012
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). The project will be funded by Municipal State Aid funds (gas tax monies). The
estimated costs are as follows:
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $343,730
Contingencies (10%) $ 34,373
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 41,247
$419,350
Funding Sources
Municipal State Aid Funds $419,350
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: Project Report: Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue) - Project #2011-1100
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Map of Project Location
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: Project Report: Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue) - Project #2011-1100
RESOLUTION NO. 12-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-1100
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-1100
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the 2012 MSA Street Improvement Program.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2011-1100 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2011-1100, is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by
the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the
amount of the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Project Report: Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Avenue) - Project #2011-1100 Page 5
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8d
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:
Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the following three actions which will allow for the implementation of the
housing improvement area project:
• Motion to Adopt Second Reading of an Ordinance to establish the Westwood Villa
Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area, approve summary, and authorize publication.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution to impose fees.
• Motion to Authorize execution of Contract for Private Development and any other related
documents, by the Mayor and City Manager, between the City and Westwood Villa
Association Inc., in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance and resolution.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take the final actions necessary to establish and implement the
Westwood Villa Housing Improvement Area?
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 City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established six
HIA’s. The Westwood Villa Association Inc. HIA proposal meets the intent and requirements of
city policy.
BACKGROUND:
On April 16, 2012, the City Council held a public hearing to consider establishing the Westwood
Villa Association Inc. as a Housing Improvement Area (HIA). The association petitioned the
City to establish the area for the purpose of financing needed common area improvements. The
Council approved the first reading of an ordinance to establish the Westwood Villa Association
Inc. HIA by a 6-0 vote with 1 abstention, and scheduled the second reading for May 7, 2012.
The City Council hearing was attended by approximately twenty-four Westwood Villa owners.
The Association Vice President and seven other owners spoke in support of creating the HIA and
two owners spoke in opposition. Following the Public Hearing, one council member toured the
building and met with Association Board members to further discuss the proposed improvements
and financing.
The HIA statute requires the Council to provide full disclosure of public expenditures, as well as
the terms of any loans, bonds, or other financing arrangements for housing improvement area
projects prior to establishing a housing improvement area. This information was discussed in the
Public Hearing Notice and discussed at the meeting of April 16, 2012. The maximum loan
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
amount would be $2,185,000 with a 20 year term at an estimated 5.50% interest rate. Fees
would be payable with real estate taxes over a 20 year period beginning in 2013, or owners may
opt to prepay the imposed fee by July 20, 2012.
The attached staff report for the April 16, 2012 public hearing provides detailed background
information.
Required Implementation Actions:
1. Ordinance Establishing the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Association Housing
Improvement Area
The ordinance establishes 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. The ordinance documents the process and provides the finance
tool for common area improvements. Significant issues addressed in the ordinance are:
• The City’s goal to maintain and preserve the City’s housing stock and stabilize
neighborhoods.
• A majority of owners filed a petition requesting a public hearing regarding
establishment of the HIA.
• The association has documented that without establishment of the HIA, the common
area improvements could not be made.
• A public hearing was conducted on April 16, 2012.
The City is required to publish a summary of the ordinance (attached) and mail the ordinance
summary to owners of all units within five days of adoption of the ordinance.
2. Resolution to Impose Fees
This document ensures that the City meets statutory requirements of imposing fees to unit
owners for repayment of the association loan. The key issues are:
The fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of
undivided ownership) of each unit as prescribed in the Declaration of Westwood Villa
Association Inc.
• Fees will be payable beginning in 2013. Unit owners have been notified of their
individual liability.
• Fees will be payable with real estate tax payments.
• The process for prepayment of fees by owners is described.
• A written objection process allows individual owners to file an objection to inclusion
in the area and subjection of fees.
• A veto period of 45 days follows the adoption of the ordinance, where 45% of the
owners, or 45% of tax capacity, may file written objections. If this occurs the statute
requires that the HIA not be put in place.
The City is required to mail a summary of the resolution (attached) to owners of all units
within five days of its approval along with a notice of the veto process.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
3. Contract for Private Development
The City would enter into a Contract for Private Development with the Westwood Villa
Association Inc. Association after the 45 day veto period expires. Staff will be working with
Kennedy & Graven, Association Board members and their property management company,
Multiventures, regarding drafting and revisions.
Kennedy & Graven has outlined the major business points of the agreement, which is
consistent with the previous HIA agreements:
• Association will provide ongoing financial reports & records for the term of the loan.
• Association will provide its assets (in the form of dues, fees, assessments and
covenants) as security to the City.
• Association will retain a replacement reserve fund agreed upon by the city and
association for the term of the loan.
• Association will retain professional property management for the term of loan.
• Association will ensure improvements are completed according to specific requirements.
• Monies will be disbursed as work is verified by City representatives as being completed.
• Association will provide notice of fee to prospective buyers.
4. City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) Internal Loan Fund
Resolution
The Internal Loan Fund resolution will be considered at a future EDA meeting. There will
be an internal loan of approximately $1,000,000 from the City/EDA Development Fund, and
the city will issue bonds for the remainder of the loan amount, not to exceed $2,185,000.00.
The resolution formalizes the loan mechanism and includes:
• A method of segregating loan funds from City funds by establishing a project fund.
• The maximum total loan amount (internal loan plus bonds) would be no greater than
$2,185,000. The project costs are estimated to be $1,953,493 for construction costs,
$68,775 costs of bond issuance and underwriters discount, $1,598 for rounding,
$47,459 for capitalized interest, $20,925 for City admin, legal and financial advisor
fees, and $92,750 for construction management fees. The internal loan would have a
20 year term, estimated 5.50% interest, accrual to begin January 1, 2013.
• The exact terms of the bonds would be determined at the time of competitive public
sale.
• Disbursement will be made to association upon written certification that items
proposed for payment are complete and necessary.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed HIA would result in the City lending Westwood Villa Association Inc. Association
a maximum of $2,185,000. A combination of City Development Funds and bonds will fund this
project. Using bonds will alleviate the concern that large amounts of City reserve funds be tied
up for a twenty-year p eriod and will ensure that the City has sufficient dollars available for more
immediate cash flow needs. Using internal funds will allow the city to generate interest income
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
and allow residents to pay off their remaining total fee in the future. Bonds will be issued in
September 2012.
All costs of the HIA are funded with the loan. The administrative costs incurred by the city are
covered by an administrative fee of one-half of one percent of the project cost which equals
$10,925 and is paid to the City after the loan closing. The underwriting, bond issuance costs,
and all soft costs are included in the total loan amount.
An internal loan resolution will be drafted to formalize the internal loan arrangement and will be
considered at a future Economic Development Authority meeting. Bond documents will be
drafted at the time of issuance of the bonds. A Development Agreement with the Association
will ensure that the total loan is secured by Association Assets, defined as dues, fees,
assessments and other income owing to the Association from unit owners. Fees will be payable
with property tax payments beginning in 2013. Owners will have the option to prepay prior to
the fees being assessed and avoid interest costs. Owners will also have the option to pay off the
fee in the future.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Westwood Villa Association Inc. Owners’ HIA improvements are consistent with
Vision St. Louis Park and the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council: “St. Louis Park
is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The HIA tool
addresses affordably valued, aging owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock.
The proposed improvements specifically address the focus of property maintenance to foster
quality housing and community aesthetics.
Attachments: Ordinance Establishing the Westwood Villa Association Inc. HIA
Summary of Ordinance
Resolution Approving a Housing Improvement Fee for Westwood Villa HIA
Notice to Owners with Summaries of Ordinance and Resolution
Council Report of April 16, 2012
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. 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, as amended (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 Condominium
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. 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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
(b) all administrative, 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 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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
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
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
EXHIBIT A
Legal description
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 10
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 11
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE WESTWOOD VILLA ASSOCIATION
INC.HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 428A.11 to 428A.21.
This ordinance establishes the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area,
which is the area legally described on Exhibit A of the Ordinance, and specifies the "Housing
Improvements" that will be constructed in Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area and financed with the Housing Improvement Fee.
This ordinance provides that the City may impose a fee on housing units in an amount sufficient
to produce revenues required to construct the Housing Improvements (the “Housing
Improvement Fee”). The Housing Improvement Fee is set by a separate City Council resolution,
but the ordinance lays out the ground rules on how the Housing Improvement Fee will be
determined. Those rules are summarized as follows:
• The Housing Improvement Fee will be imposed for Common Elements based on the
square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit. The Housing
Improvement Fee may be prepaid according to the terms set forth in the resolution.
• The Housing Improvement Fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner
as property taxes.
• The total Housing Improvement Fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in
the notice of public hearing for the resolution imposing the Housing Improvement Fee.
This ordinance provides that at any time after the City has entered into a contract with the
Westwood Villa Association Inc. for construction of the Housing Improvements, or after work
has been ordered, the Council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of (a)
an internal loan of available City funds in the principal amount necessary to finance a portion of
the cost of the Housing Improvements that has not been prepaid, together with administrative
costs, and (b) bonds of the City secured by Housing Improvement Fees as authorized by the Act,
in the principal amount necessary to finance the portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements
not financed by the internal loan or by prepayments. This ordinance requires that Westwood
Villa Association Inc. submit audited financial statements to the City each year while there are
outstanding obligations issued under the Act.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE FOR THE
WESTWOOD VILLA ASSOCIATION INC. HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21.
BE IT RESOLVED 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. By Ordinance No. _________ adopted on May 7, 2012 (the "Enabling Ordinance"),
the Council has established the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area in
order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Westwood Villa Association
Inc.", all in accordance with the Act and the Housing Improvement Area policy.
1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 50 percent of the
housing units within the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area have filed a
petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a housing
improvement fee for the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area.
1.05. The Council has on April 16, conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance
with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this resolution at which all persons,
including owners of property within the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement
Area, were given an opportunity to be heard.
1.06. 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.
1.07. Prior to the date hereof, Westwood Villa Association Inc. (the "Condominium
Association") has submitted to the City a financial plan prepared by Reserve Advisors, Inc., an
independent third party acceptable to the City and the Condominium Association, that provides for
the Condominium Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements in the
Westwood Villa Association Inc. and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital
improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the Act.
1.08. For the purposes of this Resolution, the terms "Westwood Villa Association Inc.
Housing Improvement Area" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings provided in the
Enabling Ordinance.
Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 12
2.01. The City hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the Westwood Villa
Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (the "Housing Improvement Fee"), as specified in
Exhibit A attached hereto, which Housing Improvement Fee is imposed for Common Elements
based on the square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit, all as prescribed in
the Declaration of Westwood Villa Condominium.
2.02. The Council hereby finds that the Housing Improvement Fee for the Common
Elements is imposed on the basis of square footage of each unit.
2.03. The owner of any housing unit in the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and without interest thereon
between the effective date of this resolution and July 20, 2012. The amount of the prepayment is
shown under the heading Total Cost (Prepayment Amount) in Exhibit A. Partial prepayment of the
Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Controller.
After expiration of the prepayment period on July 20, 2012, owners may, before November 30 of
any year, prepay in whole the unpaid installment of the Total Cost, with interest thereon at the rate
described in Section 2.04 of this Resolution, accrued to the end of the calendar year in which the
Total Cost is paid. If prepayment is made after November 30, the amount prepaid must include
interest through the end of the following calendar year.
2.04. If the Total Prepayment Fee is not paid between the effective date of this resolution
and July 20, 2012, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee (the “Annual
Fee”). The Annual Fee shall be imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2013, for a period no
greater than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed
to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Housing Improvement Fee. Interest shall begin
to accrue on January 1, 2013 at an annual interest rate that will produce total fee revenues collected
from all units in the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area in an amount that
equals 105 percent of the debt service payable each year on bonds to be issued by the City issued to
finance the Housing Improvements (the "Bonds") and on an internal loan to be given to the
Condominium Association by the City to finance the Housing Improvements, in accordance with
the Enabling Ordinance and the Act. Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City Clerk shall cause to be
prepared a schedule indicating the finalized Annual Fee for each Housing Unit for which the
Housing Improvement Fee has not been prepaid, which schedule shall be attached as Exhibit B to
this Resolution in the City’s official records.
2.05. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and July 20, 2012, the
Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided
for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections
428A.15 and 428A.05. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the
calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter.
2.06. A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to
administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same
manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections.
3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this Resolution, 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 Resolution; notice that owners subject to the Housing
Improvement Fee have a right to veto this Resolution if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing
units within the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area file a written
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 13
objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this Resolution; and notice that a copy of
this Resolution is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection.
Section 4. Effective Date.
4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof, subject to (a) the veto
rights of Housing Unit owners under Section 428A.18 of the Act; and (b) execution in full of a
development agreement between the Authority and the Condominium Association, providing for
construction of the Housing Improvements.
Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee.
5.01. After the effective date of this Resolution, but no later than November 15, 2012, the
City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with Exhibit B hereto to the
Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax lists of the county for
taxes payable in 2013 and thereafter.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 7th day of May, 2012.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 14
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. _______
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 15
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 16
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 17
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 18
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 19
EXHIBIT B
FINAL ANNUAL FEE TABLE
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 20
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS OF WESTWOOD VILLA ASSOCIATION INC.
REGARDING WESTWOOD VILLA ASSOCIATION INC.
HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
AND HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE
On May 7, 2012, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park adopted Ordinance No._________
establishing the Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area, and Resolution No
______imposing a housing improvement fee to finance various housing improvements in that area, all
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act").
Owners of more than 50 percent of the housing units in Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing
Improvement Area filed petitions with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding both the
ordinance and the fee resolution. The public hearings for the ordinance and the fee resolution were held on
April 16, 2012.
Within 5 days after adoption of the ordinance and the resolution, the City is required under the Housing
Improvement Act to mail this notice to owners of each housing unit in the affected area.
Following is a summary of the ordinance and the resolution, and some important information about your
rights as an owner of a housing unit in Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
Affected Area: The ordinance establishes Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area,
which is the area legally described on Exhibit A of the Ordinance and which includes all of the Westwood
Villa Association Inc. real estate.
Housing Improvements: The ordinance specifies the "Housing Improvements" that will be constructed
in Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area and financed with the Housing
Improvement Fee. Those improvements are defined as follows:
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
Housing Improvements are also defined to include architectural and engineering fees, administrative,
legal, and other consulting fees, and financing costs associated with the Housing Improvements.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 21
Housing Improvement Fee: The ordinance provides that the City may impose a fee on housing units in
an amount sufficient to produce revenues required to provide the Housing Improvements. The fee is set
by a separate City Council resolution (see summary below), but the ordinance lays out the ground rules on
how the fee will be determined. Those rules are summarized as follows:
• The fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of
undivided ownership) of each unit, as prescribed in the Declaration of Westwood Villa
Condominium.
• The fee may be prepaid according to the terms set forth in the resolution imposing the fee
• The fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes.
• The total fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing for
the resolution imposing the fee.
Financing: The ordinance provides that at any time after the City has entered into a contract with the
Westwood Villa Association Inc. for construction of the Housing Improvements, or after work has been
ordered, the Council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of (a) an internal loan of
available City funds in the principal amount necessary to finance a portion of the cost of the Housing
Improvements that has not been prepaid, together with administrative costs, and (b) bonds of the City
secured by Housing Improvement Fees, in the principal amount necessary to finance the portion of the costs
of the Housing Improvements not financed by the internal loan or by prepayments, as provided in Section
428A.16 of the Act.
Annual Report: The ordinance requires that Westwood Villa Association Inc. submit audited financial
statements to the City each year while there are outstanding obligations issued under the Act.
SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
Fee Imposed: The resolution describes the total Housing Improvement Fee for each housing unit. The
fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of undivided
ownership) of each unit. as prescribed in the Declaration of Westwood Villa Condominium. The estimated
total cost of the Housing Improvements is: $2,185,000.00 including administrative and finance costs. The
estimated annual fee per unit is shown on Exhibit A to the resolution.
Prepayment: The Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid in whole but not in part, without interest,
before July 20, 2012, after which an annual Housing Improvement Fee will be imposed. The annual
Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid in whole on any date as described in “Annual Payment” below.
Annual Payment: For housing unit owners who do not prepay the Housing Improvement Fee on or
before July 20, 2012, an annual Housing Improvement Fee will be imposed beginning in January, 2013,
for a period no greater than 20 years. The fee will include interest at a rate estimated not to exceed 5.50%
that will produce total fee revenue collected from all units in the Housing Improvement Area in an amount
that equals 105 percent of the debt service payable each year on bonds to be issued by the City issued to
finance the Housing Improvements and on an internal loan to be given to Westwood Villa Association Inc.
by the City to finance the Housing Improvements, in accordance with the Enabling Ordinance and the Act.
The annual Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid in whole on any date, in an amount equal to
outstanding principal plus accrued interest. Prepayments made before November 15 of any year must
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 22
include accrued interest through the end of the then-current year, while prepayments made after November
15 of any year must include accrued interest through the end of the following year.
County Fee: An additional fee of less than $5.00 may be imposed by Hennepin County for administrative
services in order for the Housing Improvement Fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same
manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
Housing unit owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto either the ordinance, the
fee resolution, or both. If owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within Westwood Villa
Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area file an objection with the City Clerk before the effective date
of the ordinance or the resolution the HIA will not become effective. Written signed objections should be
mailed to City of St. Louis Park, City Clerk, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
The key dates are as follows:
Ordinance and Resolution adopted: May 7, 2012
Resolution and Ordinance effective; veto/objections filing deadline: June 21, 2012
City deadline to prepay fee in full without interest: July 20, 2012
Dated: May 8, 2012
Information about Prepayment and Hardship Deferrals
Prepayment Option
Owners will have the option to prepay the total fee amount without interest between June 22, 2012 and
July 20, 2012. Please do not make payment before June 22, 2012. Payment should be made to City of St.
Louis Park, check or credit cards will be accepted.
Hardship Deferral Eligibility Guidelines
Owners that meet the following criteria may be eligible for a hardship deferral of the fee. This deferral
allows payment of the fee, with interest, to be made when the unit is sold or title transferred.
1. The owner(s)’ household income must be at or below 50% of the median area income by
household size as indicated on the HUD Assisted Housing Income Limits, for 2012 this is
• $29,400 for a one-person household
• $33,600 for a two-person household
2. The owner must be 65 years of age or older, or be a person with a permanent and total disability as
stated in State Statute 435.193, and
3. The owner must reside at the homesteaded property.
The City will be sending out a reminder of prepayment and applications for hardship deferrals
after June 22, 2012.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 23
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 24
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 25
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 26
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 27
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 28
• 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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 29
Table 2. Greensboro 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
2011 through February the Board met regularly to review findings, communicate status
with residents and take input.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 30
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
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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 31
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
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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 32
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
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.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 33
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 May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Establishment of Westwood Villa Association Inc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 34
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8e
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:
SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit to export/import
approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed grading and hauling activity consistent with City Code and conducted with
minimal impact to the adjacent properties?
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan: Park and Open Space
Zoning: C-2 General Commercial
Description of Request:
Requested is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to export and import approximately 11,000 cubic
yards of fill which is required for soil corrections prior to installation of artificial turf at the High
School football stadium. A CUP is required to import or export any volume of soil over 400
cubic yards.
Location:
The subject property is located in the Sorensen
Neighborhood. It is on the southeast side of
Lake St, located between the High School and
Central Community Center.
Background:
In January of 2012, the St. Louis Park School
Board voted to replace the natural grass
football field with artificial turf. The School
Board decided to install artificial turf because
the existing grass field limits the number of
activities that can be conducted in the stadium.
According to the School Board, the existing
grass field can only be used for approximately
60 hours per year, while artificial turf can be
used up to 3,000 hours per year.
Project Description:
The only improvement planned for the stadium is the installation of the synthetic turf. The
School District will not alter the lighting or other buildings on the property. They also will not
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
increase the seating capacity; therefore, the existing parking facilities located at the High School,
Community Center and on-street parking around the stadium will continue to satisfy the zoning
requirements.
As noted above, the synthetic turf will likely result in more use of the field. Additional games
such as soccer and Lacrosse can be played at the field. It can also be used for practice and other
school and community events. More frequent use of the field, however, does not trigger
additional parking or other zoning regulations.
Neighborhood Meeting:
The School District conducted a neighborhood meeting on April 12th. Four households attended
the meeting and had general questions about the project. Nobody spoke against the project, or
raised major concerns.
Analysis:
If approved, the CUP will allow the School District to remove approximately 11,000 cubic yards
of material from the existing football field and replace it with approximately the same amount of
sand. The purpose of the sand material is to facilitate storm water infiltration and to stabilize the
synthetic turf.
Zoning:
The property is zoned C-2 General Commercial, and football fields are permitted in this zoning
district.
Section 36-79 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a CUP for the excavation and placement of over
400 cubic yards of material. The Ordinance identifies several conditions that are required to be
met; however, many of them pertain to an on-going mining operation, and are not relevant to this
application. Those that are relevant to a one-time excavation and fill application, such as the turf
project, are listed below:
• Submittal and approval of a site plan showing the finished grade.
• Identification of the soil to be imported.
• Identification of the proposed use of the land.
• The period of time the reclamation activity will occur.
• Plans to guarantee the safety of the site.
• Identification of the truck routes.
• Methods to control dust.
• Requiring a financial guarantee to keep streets clean and meet the conditions of the
approval.
Conformance with these requirements is discussed below.
Stormwater:
All of the storm water that collects on the field will infiltrate into the ground through the new
sand material. The water will be collected in a tile system that will collect the water and direct it
to the City storm water pipe located in Library Lane. The sand and tile system is necessary to
remove the subsurface water from immediately under the synthetic turf. If the water is not
removed, the synthetic turf will be damaged by soggy field conditions and freeze/thaw cycles.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
The Public Works Department reviewed and approved the stormwater plan and determined that
there is sufficient capacity in the stormwater system to handle additional runoff. The plan was
also reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD
will also issue stormwater and erosion control permits.
Grading:
The west half of the field consists
of sandy soils, and therefore will
require little soil correction. The
east half has approximately nine
feet of poor soils that have to be
replaced with sand to a depth of
three feet.
Hauling Route and Street Access:
The applicant estimates that no
more than 400 trips will be
required to haul 11,000 cubic
yards of material to and from the
site. The trucks will enter the property next to the school maintenance garage located at the
south side of the property on Library Lane. They will take the quickest route to and from State
Highway 7, which means they will utilize Lake Street as a direct route to State Highway 7, and
they will utilize Walker Ave to Wooddale Ave to access State Highway 7 at the Wooddale Ave
interchange.
Erosion Control:
An erosion control plan was submitted, and reviewed by the City. The Public Works
Department has approved the preliminary plans. An erosion control permit will be required from
the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to starting the project.
The streets will likely require cleaning because of erosion or from the trucks entering and exiting
the site. The applicant will clean the streets as required throughout the duration of the project. A
financial guarantee will be submitted to ensure the streets are cleaned, or to cover the cost of city
efforts to clean the streets should this become necessary.
Hours of Operation:
The turf replacement project will begin after the school year has ended in June, and will be
completed by mid-August. The grading and hauling activities will be conducted during the first
half of this time frame.
City Code allows construction activity from 7am to 10pm Monday through Friday, and 9am to
10pm on weekends and holidays. The City will occasionally further limit construction activity
when it is located in close proximity to residential uses. For example, the City may require the
activity to end by 7pm on weekdays, weekends and holidays instead of 10 pm. In this case, the
subject property is located within 200 feet of residential; therefore staff is recommending that a
condition be attached to the CUP requiring construction activity to end by 7pm.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 4
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
SUMMARY:
The grading and hauling activities associated with the requested Conditional Use Permit to
import/export approximately 11,000 cubic yards of material meets the City Code requirements
and is proposed to be conducted with minimal impacts on adjacent properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing, and no comments were received.
The Planning Commission voted 5-0-1 (Shapiro abstained) to recommend approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to export/import approximately 11,000 cubic yards of material for the
turf replacement project located at 6525 Lake Street West with the following conditions:
1. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met.
2. All necessary permits must be obtained.
3. Prior to issuance of permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter
of credit in the amount of $5,000 to ensure the streets and sidewalks will be
kept clean and to repair damage to City sidewalks, streets, stormwater lines or
other public infrastructure that may result from the construction activity.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during grading and
stormwater facility construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Friday, and 7:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding
properties.
5. The trucks shall access the site by way of Highway 7 and the portions of Lake Street,
Walker St, Library Lane, Brunswick Ave, and Wooddale Ave that provide the
shortest and most direct route to and from Highway 7.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from Applicant
Site Plan
Stormwater Plan
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 5
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE EXPORTING AND
IMPORTING OF APPROXIMATELY 11,000 CUBIC YARDS OF
MATERIAL FOR PROPERTY ZONED IN THE C-2 GENERAL
COMMERICIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT
6525 LAKE STREET WEST
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. St. Louis Park Public Schools has made application to the City Council for a Conditional
Use Permit under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
exporting and importing approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill at property within a C-2
General Commercial District located at 6525 Lake Street West for the legal description as
follows, to-wit:
Lots 1 through 43 inclusive, Block 3 and Lots 1 through 20 inclusive, Block 4
including adjacent ½ of streets and alleys vacated “Rearrangement of St. Louis
Park” (Abstract)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-13-CUP) and the effect of the proposed grading and hauling
activities on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing
and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the
effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the grading and hauling activities will not be detrimental
to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic
congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the
proposed grading and hauling activities are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 12-13-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit the exporting and importing of approximately 11,000
cubic yards of material at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
2. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met.
3. All necessary permits must be obtained.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 6
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
4. Prior to issuance of permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter
of credit in the amount of $5,000 to ensure the streets and sidewalks will be
kept clean and to repair damage to City sidewalks, streets, stormwater lines or
other public infrastructure that may result from the construction activity.
b. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during grading and
stormwater facility construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Friday, and 7:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding
properties.
6. The trucks shall access the site by way of Highway 7 and the portions of Lake
Street, Walker St, Library Lane, Brunswick Ave, and Wooddale Ave that provide
the shortest and most direct route to and from Highway 7.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an
administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if
the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is
removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 7
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes APRIL 18, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 18, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
B. Conditional Use Permit – SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement
Location: 6525 Lake Street West
Applicant: St. Louis Park Public Schools
Case No.: 12-13-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The
conditional use permit to export and import approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill is
required for soil corrections prior to installation of artificial turf at the High School
football stadium.
Commissioner Carper asked how many truckloads would be required.
Jay Pomeroy, landscape architect, Anderson Johnson Associates, said the maximum
number of truck trips would be 400, but would probably be less.
Commissioner Person asked if the elevation would remain the same.
Mr. Morrison responded that the elevation will remain the same. The field will be a little
flatter.
Chair Kramer asked about the origin of the soil being half sand and half fill.
Mr. Pomeroy said they were puzzled about that as well. The northeast half of the field is
fill and the southwest quadrant is sand. He said very little water will leave the site. It
will mostly infiltrate.
Commissioner Morris asked how long the project would take.
Paul Apilkowski, Wold Architects and Engineers, stated that work would commence
approximately June 15th and be completed around August 23rd.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 8
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit
Sandy Salin, Director of Business, St. Louis Park Schools, stated the school has received
very positive feedback from the neighborhood in regard to the turf installation.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Shapiro stated that as a School Board member he would abstain from the
vote.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to export and import approximately 11,000 cubic yards of fill, subject to
conditions. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 5-0-1 (Shapiro abstained).
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit Page 9
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit Page 10
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: SLP High School Stadium Turf Replacement – Conditional Use Permit Page 11
Meeting Date: May 7, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8f
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:
Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Eldridge 4th Addition,
subject to conditions recommended by staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed plat of Eldridge 4th Addition consistent with the zoning and subdivision
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan?
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: R-2 Single Family Residential
Description of Request:
Requested is a Preliminary and Final Plat to reconfigure three existing lots into two lots for new
single family homes. The proposed plat consists of two lots, one on Wooddale Ave, the other on
Raleigh Ave. The Wooddale Ave lot currently has a house on it that will be removed. The
Developer, Rob Eldridge, intends to build two new, move up homes on the new lots.
Location:
The subject properties are
located in the Minikahda Vista
Neighborhood. They are on the
north side of Wooddale Ave
and the south side of Raleigh
Ave, and just west of Princeton
Ave. This section of Raleigh
Ave is a short cul-de-sac that is
approximately 340 feet long.
Background:
The existing lots that are
subject to this plat application
were platted in 1910. Shortly
after 1910, some of the lots
were split and combined with
adjacent lots. In 1953 the
existing house was constructed on one of the existing lots. Homes were never constructed on the
remaining lots that are the subject of this application.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 2
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Plat Analysis:
The plat proposes to reduce the number of lots
from three to two. The only existing house is
on Wooddale Ave, and will be replaced with a
new house. The new lot will front on Raleigh
Ave as Lot 1.
The tables below details the existing and
proposed lot sizes.
Zoning Requirements:
The proposed plat meets the zoning requirements of
minimum lot size and width for the R-2 Single
Family Residential District.
Minimum Lot Size:
The minimum required lot size is 7,200 square feet,
and Lot 1 will have a lot size of 10,746 and Lot 2
will have a lot size of 11,235 sf.
Minimum Lot Width:
The minimum required lot width is 60 feet, and the
proposed lots have a 77 foot lot width on Lot 1, and
92 foot lot width on Lot 2.
Existing Lots:
Address Lot Size
Lot 13 4218 Raleigh 3,387 sf
Lot 14 4222 Raleigh 4,524 sf
Lot 31 4225 Wooddale 14,070 sf
21,981 sf
Proposed Plat:
Address Lot Size
Lot 1 To be determined 10,746 sf
Lot 2 4225 Wooddale 11,235 sf
21,981 sf
Lot 1
Lot 2
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 3
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Home Construction:
The proposed plat consists of two lots, one on Wooddale Ave, the other on Raleigh Ave. The
Wooddale Ave lot currently has a house on it that will be demolished. The Developer, Rob
Eldridge, intends to build two new, move up homes on the new lots.
Stormwater:
A portion of Lot 1 is a low area. In order for a house to be constructed on this lot, part of the low
area has to be filled in. The application shows how a home could fit on the lot by filling in a
portion of the low area. To ensure the fill doesn’t adversely affect stormwater drainage, the
applicant will construct a stormwater
inlet that will take the stormwater to
the City stormwater sewer in Raleigh
Ave. (See arrow)
The Public Works Department
reviewed the stormwater plan and the
concept grading plan and determined
that there is sufficient capacity in the
stormwater system to handle
additional runoff, and that the
improvement is sufficient to prevent
excess water from being displaced
onto adjacent lots.
Grading:
The Zoning Ordinance allows a
property owner to import up to 400 cubic yards of material to the site without a conditional use
permit. To date, the applicant believes he will not need more than 400 cubic yards of fill. Exact
calculations will be submitted with a building permit. If it is determined at that time that a
conditional use permit is required, then he will make application prior to City approval of the
building permit.
Right-of-Way Dedications:
The proposed plat has frontage on two streets, Wooddale Ave and Raleigh Ave. The City
Engineering Department reviewed the plat, and determined that the City does not need additional
right-of-way on either street.
Street Access:
The existing house on Wooddale Ave (Lot 2) will continue to have a driveway access to
Wooddale Ave. A new driveway access will be required on Raleigh Ave for Lot 1.
Tree Replacement:
The existing house on Wooddale Ave will be replaced with a new home. The applicant will
make every effort to preserve the existing trees in the front yard because of the value they add to
the lot. Protective fencing around the trees will be required as part of the building permit.
There are six large trees on the proposed Raleigh Ave lot. Efforts will be made to save some of
them, but most will be removed as a result of the grading required to raise the house pad.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 4
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
City Code requires trees that are removed as a result of a subdivision to be replaced. In this case,
however, tree replacement is not required because it is not technically a subdivision. The plat
proposes to reconfigure three existing lots into two, not subdivide an existing lot into smaller
lots, which is how a subdivision is defined.
Park Dedication / Trail dedication:
Park and Trail dedication applies for subdivisions, when a lot is subdivided to create additional
lots. The proposed plat is not a “subdivision” because it reconfigures three existing lots into two;
therefore, park and trail dedication does not apply.
Sidewalks:
A sidewalk exists along the Wooddale Ave frontage. A sidewalk does not exist along Raleigh
Ave. City Code requires sidewalks along all street frontages when a lot is subdivided. As noted
above, this plat however is not a subdivision.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District:
Additional permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be required prior to
beginning construction on the site.
Utilities:
The Zoning Ordinance requires all utilities for new homes to be buried underground.
SUMMARY:
The proposed plat for Eldridge 4th Addition meets the subdivision and zoning requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing. One person attended, but nobody gave
comments.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of
Eldridge 4th Addition with the following conditions:
1. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met.
2. All necessary permits must be obtained.
3. Prior to signing the plat, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $1000 to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat
is provided to the City.
b. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public improvements, landscaping,
repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities, and to guarantee the provision of as-
built drawings for all new public infrastructure to the City.
c. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during grading and
stormwater facility construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Friday, and 7:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 5
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties.
5. All new utilities shall be buried.
6. The stormwater improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy of a new home on Lot 1.
Attachments: Site Map
Draft Resolution
Excerpt from Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
Preliminary and Final Plat
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 6
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Site Map
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 7
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
ELDRIDGE 4th ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Ridge Creek Custom Homes, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be
platted as Eldridge 4th Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and
final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 49, Hennepin County,
Minnesota lying southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the southwesterly
line, distant 34.83 feet southeasterly measured along said southwesterly line from
the most westerly corner of said tract, to a point on the northeasterly line of said
tract distant 18.55 feet southeasterly measured along said northeasterly line from
the most northerly corner of said tract (Torrensed from Certificate of Title No.
1328040);
The southeasterly 2 feet, front and rear of that part of Tract C, Registered Land
Survey No. 49, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying northwesterly of a line drawn
from a point on the southwesterly line, distant 34.83 feet southeasterly measured
along said southwesterly line from the most westerly corner of said tract, to a
point on the northeasterly line of said Tract distant 18.55 feet southeasterly
measured along said northeasterly line from the most northerly corner of said tract
(Torrensed from Certificate of Title 1328039);
The northwesterly 10 feet, front and rear, of Lot 30, Block 4, “Wooddale Park”,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (Torrensed from Certificate of Title No. 1328039);
Lot 31, Block 4, “Wooddale Park”, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract from
Deed, Doc. No. A9581298). (PID: 702824310171)
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 8
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Lot 13, Block 4, “Wooddale Park”, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Torrensed from
Certificate of Title No. 1328041). (PID: 702824310070)
Lot 14, Block 4, “Wooddale Park”, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Torrensed from
Certificate of Title No. 1325805). (PID: 702824310071)
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Eldridge 4th Addition is hereby
approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City
plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota,
provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and
Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. All conditions for stormwater management shall be met.
b. All necessary permits must be obtained.
c. Prior to signing the plat, the following conditions shall be met:
i. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of $1000 to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the
City.
ii. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of public improvements, landscaping, repair/cleaning of
public streets and utilities, and to guarantee the provision of as-built drawings for all new
public infrastructure to the City.
iii. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner.
d. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during grading and stormwater
facility construction:
e. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction
activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and 7:00 PM
and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays.
i. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
ii. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties.
iii. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
iv. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in
order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties.
f. All new utilities shall be buried.
g. The stormwater improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy of a new home on Lot 1.
h. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 9
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 7, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 10
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes APRIL 18, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 18, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
A. Preliminary and Final Plat – Eldridge 4th Addition
Location: 4225 Wooddale Avenue South
Applicant: Ridge Creek Custom Homes
Case No.: 12-09-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the applicant proposes to reconfigure three previously platted lots into two lots. Mr.
Morrison said one of the proposed lots will be on Wooddale Avenue and the other lot will
be on Raleigh Avenue. The house on the Wooddale Ave. lot will be demolished and
replaced with a new house. A new house will be constructed on the Raleigh Ave. lot.
Commissioner Morris said the request looks fine and meets requirements. He said he
was curious as to how underutilized lots become identified and developed.
Mr. Morrison said in this case the owner put the land on the market.
Rob Eldridge, applicant, Ridge Creek Custom Homes, said he had been searching for
land. The owner put the land on the market and he purchased it right away.
Commissioner Carper asked if the existing house would be moved or if materials would
be recycled in any way. Mr. Eldridge said in this case it doesn’t make sense to take the
house off of the foundation because the trees would be sacrificed in order to do that.
They do intend to salvage building materials as much as possible.
Commissioner Kramer opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson stated that the request was very straightforward. He made a
motion recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Eldridge 4th
Addition, subject to conditions included by staff. Commissioner Morris seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f)
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat Page 11
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f)
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat Page 12
City Council Meeting of May 7, 2012 (Item No. 8f)
Subject: Eldridge 4th Addition – Preliminary and Final Plat Page 13